Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [RFC] klibc requirements, round 2 | Date | Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:50:52 -0800 | From | "Torrey Hoffman" <> |
| |
Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:18:49PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: ... > > - image viewer > > - mkreiserfs > > I think these are examples of misunderstanding what initramfs _can do_ > with what we (might) need a klibc to do. ... > These programs _might_ compile with a klibc, but I wouldn't > worry about > it. uClibc is what should be used for many of these custom > applications
Well, as the person who first mentioned mkreiserfs and the like, I agree with you. For the majority of systems out there which aren't using initrd now, a minimal klibc for an unmodified initramfs makes sense.
My concern is with the minority who are using initrd, and in some cases a very customized initrd.
The important thing, I think, is that it should be easy for less-than-guru level hackers to add programs to the initramfs, even if the program they want can't be linked with klibc.
This really comes down to: What will the build process be for these initramfs images?
By the way, is initramfs intended to supercede initrd, or will they co-exist?
Torrey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |