[Clfs-dev] Embedded with EGLIBC - Testers Wanted

[Kirk Terrell]

On 10/02/2013 10:52 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 10:11:03 PM, Andrew Bradford wrote:
>> On 07/18/13 15:11, Andrew Bradford wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 08:15 AM, Andrew Bradford wrote:
>> >> I've not done any testing yet but I have a branch that uses EGLIBC
>> >> instead of uClibc for the embedded book.  If anyone wants to give 
>> it a
>> >> whirl and let me know what issues you find, that'd be awesome!
>> >>
>> >> I'll be doing some testing real soon now.
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/bradfa/clfs-embedded/tree/eglibc-n-headers
>>
>> That branch is a dead end but the concept is living on again for me!
>>
>> > So I'm giving up on EGLIBC or glibc.  They're both huge and that's not
>> > really in line with the goals of the embedded book.  For now uClibc
>> > makes the most sense but I'm not completely ruling out musl-libc 
>> until I
>> > try it at least once.
>>
>> glibc isn't as horrible as first thought, size wise.  It's still not as
>> small as uClibc can be or as musl is, but that's OK I think as the
>> overhead of configuring it is very low and binutils + gcc don't need any
>> special patches to support it.  Low overhead and straight forward
>> configuration win in my mind, still.
>
> One of the things that attracts me to uClibc and musl is you don't 
> need perl as a build prerequisite for either. I pushed patches 
> upstream to linux to take out the perl build prerequisite that 
> appeared in 2.6.25 (as of 3.10 or so it's gone away again), so if 
> you're using a libc other than glibc, perl can move from LFS to BLFS.
>
> Also, size isn't my only criteria, I like the simplicity of musl. If 
> somebody wants to security audit their system, it's a lot easier to 
> read through the whole of musl than to read and understand all the 
> glibc code. (uClibc... less so than it used to be.)
>
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Clfs-dev mailing list
> Clfs-dev at lists.cross-lfs.org
> http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
>

I've spent some time on using musl as a replacement in CLFS embedded 
fork. The biggest drawback is the 60/40 chance that an additional 
package will compile. I ran thru a sample of 13 packages from BLFS that 
were chosen because they used the GNU Build System and were written in C 
and had no additional prerequisites - only 8 packages compiled using the 
instructions in BLFS.

What niche is the CLFS embedded targeting - a raspPI can run a full 
blown desktop distribution?


____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3341/524e356f687b8356c10d3st03vuc