Re: Question about apply eglibc configurability to create minimal image

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 6/9/11 10:34 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 
> 
> 2011/6/9 Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com <mailto:mark.hatle@windriver.com>>
> 
>     On 6/9/11 5:57 AM, Kang Kai wrote:
>     > Hi Mark,
>     >
>     > I am focus on eglibc itself compilation with disabling all the
>     > configurable options, right now eglibc can be compiled with disable all
>     > the configurable options.
>     >
>     > But when I build core-image-minimal in a clear new directory, some
>     > packages build failed and they need eglibc supports, such as
> 
>     core-image-minimal is simply to large of an image to see some of the advantages
>     of the eglibc configuration.  Realistically the advantages come on single
>     application or small (busybox + single application) systems.
> 
> 
> Then again if you are in that usecase you're probably better off (spacewise)
> using static linking

dynamical linking has the advantage of requiring less run-time memory.  So
multi-process, small systems are better in dynamic configurations then static.
(Copy-On-Write)

On-disk space is better static then dynamic.  It's all trade-offs in the end.

--Mark

> Frans
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core