[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:0.024 / U:33.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site