Re: klibc development release

[Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>]

On Sun Aug 11, 2002 at 11:31:13AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Personally, I question the klibc work a bit because it's reinventing the 
> wheel with projects like uclibc already mostly there.  But Al pointed out the 
> license issue with static linking against LGPL libraries, and in any case a 

Keep in mind that you _can_ staticly link even closed source
stuff against an LGPL library...  You just need to "Accompany the
work with a written offer, valid for at least three years" to
provide users with an object file that can be re-linked against
newer versions of the LGPL library.  Or simply provide the .o
file.  See the LGPL Section 6...

> to one side: I'm not fond of glibc and am looking to replace it in my own 
> system, but it hasn't made it to the top of my to-do list yet.  (Dietlibc is 
> straight GPL: it can't even be the dynamic replacement for glibc in a real 
> world linux distribution.  HPA suggested I look at newlibc, which I've added 
> to my to-do list).

As far as I know, uClibc is the only library that is able to
replace glibc for real world linux distributions...  And I've
looked long and hard (which was why I ended up making uClibc),

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--