uclibc vs glibc

Archaic archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 1 05:13:55 PST 2004


On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 08:08:20AM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> 
> 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.

The main goal is learning. However, learning isn't limited to a system
that can rebuild itself. But to be more specific than I was in my last
message, if a non-grsec enabled kernel is all that is needed to be able
to rebuild, it seems far more intuitive to do that than replace the core
C libraries with what must, by all logic, be seen as a much less tested
package.

I'm sure by now you know my default position is one of skepticism. Don't
misread my concerns as saying you shouldn't venture on this road. I just
like to at least get multiple perspectives out on the table for people
to chew on. I do like the idea of full PIC, I'm just wondering at what
cost should its fruition be realized?

-- 
Archaic

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can
exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their
revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list