WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Why not uClibc?  (Read 6032 times)

Offline ^thehatsrule^

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1726
Re: Why not uClibc?
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2009, 06:28:18 PM »
Does the current kernel still support LZMA?
I believe the versions with the current kernel did not include these patches.

i like the way you think. there is an unlzma in /usr/bin if that helps, but it would probably require changes in tce-load, or some fancy packaging to use an lzma image inside a normal package.
unlzma was a leftover and was removed in recent versions.

Offline curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10219
Re: Why not uClibc?
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2009, 03:53:49 PM »
@technosaurus: I wonder how, if at all, having busybox built statically against any libc would help. Seeing as everything is in RAM, the lookup of a function in libc.so.6 is very fast.
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline fhillca

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Why not uClibc?
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2009, 09:05:37 AM »
As a long time user of buildroot (uclibc) for several embedded systems, I have found it to be difficult to use and extremely unreliable.  I lost count of the times that buildroot would fail during the build process, even with a minimal target selection.  Also, the weird patching of the linux kernel makes it nearly impossible to use a current kernel.

I switch to a heavily hacked version of the DSL iso file for my development purposes.   I also use a stripped verison of debian lenny with busybox for development.

I recently ran across tiny core linux, which turns out to be the exact lean development environment I have been looking for.  I use tcl in a KVM/QEMU virtual machine to do the initial development, which includes kernel and application building.

Yes, the libraries are larger than uclibc, but the reduction in aggravation makes tcl the best solution I have yet seen for my purposes.