Re: [klibc] klibc and what's the next step?

maximilian attems
2006-07-03T18:46:58Z

On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:30:45PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 8:04 pm, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > If you are concerned about this simply keep the whole thing optional.
> > Embedded application usually know their boot device and they don't need no
> > fancy initramfs.
>
> Actually, a lot of embedded applications like initramfs because it saves
> memory (a ram block device, a filesystem driver, and filesystem overhead.)
> Don't use embedded applications as a reason _not_ to do this!
>
> BusyBox has had explicit support for initramfs (switch_root) for several
> versions now. I pestered HPA about building a subset of BusyBox against
> klibc (and cross-compiling klibc for non-x86 platforms) at the Consumer
> Electronics Linux Forum, but haven't had time to follow up yet.
>
> Rob

well but busybox is big nowadays and generally compiled against glibc.
i'm quite eager to kick busybox out of default Debian initramfs-tools
to have an klibc only default initramfs. those tools are needed atm,
and there is not enough yet. afaik suse adds sed on klibc with a minimal
patch and we'd liked to have stat, kill and readlink on klibc-utils.

how about busybox on klibc?

--
maks