glibc and uClibc

Bennett Todd bet at
Mon Jan 17 10:35:01 PST 2005

2005-01-17T18:15:27 Archaic:
> I am soliciting comments from people who have reason to have an opinion.
> Technical reasons are what I am looking for. If you feel strongly that
> one libc over the other would be better *for HLFS* please feel free to
> comment.

I think it's good *for us all* to pursue both, actively. Diversity
is wonderful. It's good for lots of things, security being one.

I personally like uClibc a whole lot better; I like its relative
simplicity. I really like its convenient and flexible configuration
support, allowing the builder to omit various bits if they choose.

Today, and for the forseeable future, a solely uClibc-based distro
will be a niche player, porting stuff to it (and porting it to
stuff) looks to be a never-ending project.

But having uClibc as an alternative is great, good for diversity,
good for expanding the potential reach of a project.

It sounds to me like what you're proposing is ideal for HLFS.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list