[klibc] Re: Merge strategy for klibc

[Michael Tokarev]

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