ulibc instead of glibc

ulibc instead of glibc

[Lorenzati, Marcelo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 473 bytes --]

Hi all,
                I wanted to know if it's feasible to build Yocto with ulibc instead of glibc and if someone have tried.
In a really constrained system could be the difference between selecting RT Linux or another real time OS.

Regards

[cid:image001.gif@01CBBCA4.CBC86F00]

Marcelo Lorenzati
Argentina Software Development Center
Software and Services Group
Phone: +54 351 5358761
marcelo.lorenzati@intel.com<mailto:marcelo.lorenzati@intel.com>




[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5310 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.gif --]
[-- Type: image/gif, Size: 1481 bytes --]

Re: ulibc instead of glibc

[Mark Hatle]

On 1/25/11 12:36 PM, Lorenzati, Marcelo wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>                 I wanted to know if it’s feasible to build Yocto with ulibc
> instead of glibc and if someone have tried.
> 
> In a really constrained system could be the difference between selecting RT
> Linux or another real time OS.
> 

So far uclibc has not been a goal of the Yocto project.  With the minimum size
of flash parts these days, the configurability of eglibc and the mklibs library
optimizer... the use-case for uclibc is quickly going away.

(eglibc configuration is not yet implemented in Yocto.  Mklibs is currently
being implemented.)

We have built (at Wind River) eglibc filesystems, single application systems, in
foot prints of less then 2 MB of disk space required.  As far as I know,
currently the smallest flash parts you can get for new designs are in the 4 MB
range, and quickly those are being replaced by 16 MB (and larger) parts...

eglibc also has the advantage (over uclibc) of better support for a wide range
of existing Open Source projects.

With that all said, yes it should be feasible to add uclibc to Yocto... but it's
not already there as far as I know.

--Mark

> 
> Regards
> 
>  
> 
> cid:image001.gif@01CB4310.9C4582D0
> 
> 	
> 
> *Marcelo Lorenzati**
> *Argentina Software Development Center
> 
> Software and Services Group
> Phone: +54 351 5358761
> marcelo.lorenzati@intel.com <mailto:marcelo.lorenzati@intel.com>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: ulibc instead of glibc

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 13:31 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 1/25/11 12:36 PM, Lorenzati, Marcelo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> >                 I wanted to know if it’s feasible to build Yocto with ulibc
> > instead of glibc and if someone have tried.
> > 
> > In a really constrained system could be the difference between selecting RT
> > Linux or another real time OS.
> > 
> 
> So far uclibc has not been a goal of the Yocto project.  With the minimum size
> of flash parts these days, the configurability of eglibc and the mklibs library
> optimizer... the use-case for uclibc is quickly going away.
> 
> (eglibc configuration is not yet implemented in Yocto.  Mklibs is currently
> being implemented.)
> 
> We have built (at Wind River) eglibc filesystems, single application systems, in
> foot prints of less then 2 MB of disk space required.  As far as I know,
> currently the smallest flash parts you can get for new designs are in the 4 MB
> range, and quickly those are being replaced by 16 MB (and larger) parts...
> 
> eglibc also has the advantage (over uclibc) of better support for a wide range
> of existing Open Source projects.
> 
> With that all said, yes it should be feasible to add uclibc to Yocto... but it's
> not already there as far as I know.

Right, we do have old uclibc recipes in Poky still I believe although
they would need updating after the recent toolchain bootstrap changes. I
do know people using uclibc actively in OE and this may be something
people want to add to oe-core so it might end up happening but its not
currently on the officially supported by Yocto list. 

Cheers,

Richard

Re: ulibc instead of glibc

[Darren Hart]

On 01/25/2011 10:36 AM, Lorenzati, Marcelo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to know if it’s feasible to build Yocto with ulibc instead of
> glibc and if someone have tried.
>
> In a really constrained system could be the difference between selecting
> RT Linux or another real time OS.

What size of an image are you hoping to achieve?


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: ulibc instead of glibc

[Lorenzati, Marcelo]

Hi Darren,
	I'm just trying to estimate the minimal footprint that can be achieved for an image with a basic set of features in order to have a comparison.
In march I'll participate in a local academia event in Argentina and I'll be talking about Yocto, so I have anticipated that this kind of questions would be in place.
	

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@linux.intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 6:31 PM
To: Lorenzati, Marcelo
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] ulibc instead of glibc

On 01/25/2011 10:36 AM, Lorenzati, Marcelo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to know if it's feasible to build Yocto with ulibc instead of
> glibc and if someone have tried.
>
> In a really constrained system could be the difference between selecting
> RT Linux or another real time OS.

What size of an image are you hoping to achieve?


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel