Baslinux mailing list

[3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org]

Christian Brandt wrote:
>
> Are you avoiding ulibc so you can use Slackware-packages? 

That is one reason.  BL3 users can go immediately to
Slackware 4.0 and install whatever packages they want.
There are very few pre-compiled packages available for 
uClibc.

> ulibc should use even less memory. 

Yes. uClibc is half the size of libc5.

> Or does it miss some critical features?

No, in some respects uClibc is better than libc5.  It handles
some source code that fails under libc5.  However, the uClibc 
developers keep breaking compatibility with earlier versions 
(so dynamic binaries compiled with a previous version won't 
work with the current version).  I'm waiting for a stable uClibc 
before I consider compiling dynamic uClibc binaries.

> About the kernel, have you ever looked into the more esoteric 
> options for embedded devices? 

I used the 2.0 kernel (which is significantly smaller that 2.2)
for BL1.  I wanted to use it for BL3, but the 2.0 simply could 
not do everything I wanted.  So I'm using the 2.2.  

Yes, I did have a look at 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, but they have
much more overhead.  Yes, there are options and hacks to reduce
the size, but I never found anything that gave me a smaller 
kernel with better functionality than our current 2.2.

Cheers,
Steven

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