Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:39:38 +0300 | From | Michael Tokarev <> | Subject | Re: 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..
Thanks.
/mjt - 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/
| |