[klibc] initramfs howto

Andreas Jellinghaus aj at ciphirelabs.com
Wed Aug 10 01:51:38 PDT 2005

please kill the part about glibc being to big and replace it
with some moderate sentence like "most people prefer a small
initramfs and thus want a libc optimized for size like klibc
which is considereably smaller than glibc".

I have 160MB+ (compressed) initramfs with absolutely no problems,
containing everything I could possibly ever need, and that is
very, very, very nice to have. porting several hundred applications
to klibc would not make the end result significantly smaller and only
waste a lot of time.

"but glibc is _way_ too big" is simply wrong, there is no _technical_
reason why it is too big. please present the benefits and tradeoffs
with pure technical arguments (size versus the need to port and recompile
every app), and people can make a decission on their own.

Thanks, Andreas

------------------------ [ SECURITY NOTICE ] ------------------------
To: klibc at zytor.com, daniel at dthaler.de.
For your security, aj at ciphirelabs.com
digitally signed this message on 10 August 2005 at 08:52:58 UTC.
Verify this digital signature at http://www.ciphire.com/verify.
------------------- [ CIPHIRE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] -------------------
--------------------- [ END DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ---------------------

More information about the klibc mailing list