Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] dietlibc binaries for basiclinux

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] dietlibc binaries for basiclinux
  • Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:29:06 +1200

James Miller wrote:
>
> I think Steven ruled out dietlibc for some reason.

I had a close look at both dietlibc and uClibc
and compiled binaries using both methods. IMHO
uClibc is far superior. First of all, it's a
proper library, not a kludge like dietlibc.
Second, uClibc is far more stable. I got segfaults
from some dietlibc binaries (always a bad sign, but
especially annoying with a supposedly static binary).

It is also unfair to compare a packed dietlibc
binary with a non-packed uClibc binary. Packing
is a separate issue. If you really want to, you
can pack uClibc binaries.

It may be worth mentioning here that there are
several tricks you can use to squeeze more into
less space. For example, you can use a compressed
filesystem that can be accessed on-the-fly by a
special routine in the kernel. However, BasicLinux
is not about squeezing the most into the smallest
possible space. It is about providing basic
functionality for old PCs. The HDs on old PCs
have plenty of room for uncompressed binaries.
The limiting factors for old PCs are slow CPUs
and low RAM, both of which are burdened by
on-the-fly uncompression.

> And he has spoken several times of using uclibc
> once the new branch appears and stabilizes

uClibc plans are on hold. I spent a lot of time
trying to assemble a uClibc version of BL3, but
I kept running into little kernel issues. For
smooth going, I should be using a 2.4 kernel
(but I'm not ready for that). I got the CLI
stuff working, but ran into some major problems
with the X libraries. Xvesa 4.3 compiled OK,
but I was disappointed to see it had the same
problems we have with the Xvesa in BL3.

At that point "real life" intruded and it was
necessary to install some bloated work software
on my crowded HD. Something had to go. And,
since I was annoyed that uClibc compilation
wasn't going well, I deleted all the uClibc stuff.

I also realized that a uClib BL4 would put a huge
burden on me to compile stuff for users. With
the current libc5, you can get a lot of useful
bits+pieces from Slackware 4.0. But with a new
library everybody would be turning to me (and
I'm simply too busy over the next six months to
fulfill to such requests).

I'll have another look at it when I have more
free time, but for the moment I reckon BL3 is
OK as is.

Cheers,
Steven

____________________________
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page