uclibc vs glibc

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 1 04:08:20 PST 2004


On October 31, 2004 10:33 pm, Archaic wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 05:57:47PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > The main thing that bothers me about Glibc is we will never be able to
> > rebuild itself in the finished system with all the Grsec features
> > enabled.
>
> I thought the goal of this book was to produce a hardened final system
> moreso than to produce a development system that can rebuild itself.
> Also, if the problem is just with the grsec kernel features, then what
> happens if you build a temporary non-grsec kernel for reproduction?
>
> --
> Archaic

How does Glibc help us achieve any goal? The main goal is about learning. If 
its not going to rebuild itself then gcc, binutils, libtool, autofoo, etc 
could all be removed from chapter 6. But thats still not a reason yet to not 
use Uclibc.



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list