[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [RFC] klibc requirements, round 2
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?

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: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.069 / U:1.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site