lfs-01 at thewizardstower.org
Sun Jan 4 09:46:53 PST 2004
* Robert Day <zarin at dscn.net> [04-0104 18:33]:
> On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 06:45, Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> > * ashes <cendres at videotron.ca> [04-0104 11:51]:
> > > Is there any reasons uclibc would be considered more secure then glibc? What
> > > sort of applications would not be able to build with uclibc? I'm pretty sure
> > > X will, if not then TinyX. Should at least be considered. uclibc and busybox
> > > is less code, should be less prone to bugs too.
> > That's an unwarranted and dangerous assumption. Code size and number
> Assumption it is not - theory it is.
The way ashes expressed it (less code -> less bugs) is in general, and
IMHO, the wrong approach to trying to find a less buggy alternative to
any given package. My intention was simply to point this out.
uclibc should be considered on its merits, for our own purposes,
regardless of the size of its code.
> Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it is not - but the kind of gusto
> ashes is showing for this project is what will make it a sucess.
Please don't take what I wrote as a critique or anything else on ashes
-- I agree he's driving this project forward and that's great. But
it's the sum of the bits of knowledge we all have that will make this
project work in the end!
More information about the hlfs-dev