[Clfs-dev] Embedded: Is e2fsprogs really needed in core embedded book?

[Hector Oron]

Hi,

2011/4/9 Andrew Bradford <bradfa at gmail.com>:

> I think if people are successful getting stuff to build and run
> properly on an embedded build, it'd be nice to know.  I'm not sure of
> the best format, (C)BLFS wiki versus book versus some other medium.

I'd like to test it for ARM, but I always have trouble to find out
which it latest and greatest (to test).

> Which then has to beg the question, would moving embedded to EGLIBC be
> something to consider?  My impression is the 'E' stands for embedded,
> but I'm not sure if it's as small as uClibc (I'm assuming it's not).

EGLIBC is GNU Libc (Glibc) with some patches on top so it allows
better integration with embedded systems. For example, it fixes
install headers target when building cross compilers, it has support
for multicore ARM chips, supports building with -Os, etc... it can be
built to be fully compatible with Glibc, but it can also be built
disabling some of its fat (iconv stuff, etc..) making it _not
compatible_ with Glibc. EGLIBC is just an easier to work with C
library when comparing to Glibc. uClibc vs EGLIBC, it probably needs
testing and benchmarking, but rumor has it that uClibc performace and
small(ish) size cannot be beaten but a shrink down EGLIBC, but for me
it is just a rumour.

Best regards,
-- 
 Héctor Orón  -.. . -... .. .- -.   -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.

"Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar
System, which one day will disconnect us."

-- Day DVB-T stop working nicely
Video flare: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100510.html