uclibc vs glibc
robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 1 21:22:16 PST 2004
On November 1, 2004 09:00 pm, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:24:39PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> You are the one doing the heavy development work. As long as apache (and
> it's mods) and any other server we want to support run on uclibc, then
> we should be okay. I believe we both agree on X not being a priority. At
> least not in this situation. Will this help in the rebuildability
> problem you were discussing earlier?
As for helped rebuildability, I'm not sure yet either. This means cross
compiling when changing libc's. As far as I can tell so far it should rebuild
on the strictest grsec kernels.
Getting X to work would be good for getting more testers. If we're able to use
hlfs on a desktop a lot more people will use it. It doesn't mean its a goal,
it just means it wouldn't hurt. I for one would really like to get xorg
working with hlfs so I can develop more effectively.
I like the design of cross compiling by default, whether the host has Uclibc
native or not.. we won't be able to assume either way. So the preliminary
toolchain will have to be a cross toolchain.
More information about the hlfs-dev