[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Merge strategy for klibc
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Okay, as of this point, I think klibc is in quite good shape; my
> testing so far is showing that it can be used as a drop-in replacement
> for the kernel root-mounting code.
> Thus, it's not clear to me what particular approach makes most sense for
> pushing upstream.

Why this needs to be "pushed" upstream in the first place? Isn't it
simpler/easier/whatever to just require klibc to be present on the
build system for kernel? If klibc is "sufficiently" independent of
the kernel (is it? I see no reason it shouldn't), why it should go
with kernel? Just point your CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE to some klibc
directory tree and be done with it, no need to distribute/build
klibc with kernel..


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-21 13:43    [W:0.057 / U:46.452 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site