uclibc vs glibc

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 1 17:24:39 PST 2004

Uclibc has recieved less testing and has fewer developers than Glibc, but 
anyone following Glibc knows it is never stable (anymore). Bugfixes sent to 
Glibc often don't get commited at all, when they do it is usually months 
later... in the case of the owl fix, it was finally accepted and fixed by 
Glibc about 7 months after the problem was addressed, Uclibc took it 
seriously strait away.. referenced here:

Uclibc is much more interested in supporting security features then Glibc is. 
Getting propolice into Glibc upstream will probily never happen, its always 
helpful when the upstream developers are supporting what we're doing. Glibc 
has their own agenda.

The package size isn't really an issue, but less code and fewer features 
usually translates into something that is easier to manage. Aswell Uclibc's 
config is a very nice way of installing just the features we want. Glibc's 
configure is much less configurable.


More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list