Re: klibc and what's the next step?

Rob Landley
2006-07-03T18:32:02Z

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
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.