[uClibc] Re: LFS -vs- uClibc (was Re: self hosting uclibc)

[Rogelio M.Serrano Jr.]

On 2004-07-08 21:30:14 +0800 Bennett Todd <bet at rahul.net> wrote:

> 2004-07-08T13:00:41 Christian MICHON:
>> LFS uses glibc as a pre-requisite. And a specific version, depending 
>> on
>> the book version. There's a official uclibc-patch repository 
>> somewhere,
>> but I'd say look at it, don't use it (no flame please). Root_fs
>> philosophy, from what I understood, is "keep it small".
>> 
>> LFS, even with uclibc, is nowhere close to "small", even with -Os...
> 
> I'd have to agree with your remark, under the main (and recommended)
> interpretation of "LFS" --- a set of instructions you follow
> _precisely_, which result in a working system, about which you can
> ask for support on the lfs lists.
> 
> However, LFS can still add value to building a uClibc-based system
> from scratch; they have figured out an order of package building
> that works pretty well for getting dependencies satisfied, and some
> of their patches are helpful. I built bent linux that way. I don't
> call the result an LFS, but I definitely call it "inspired by" and
> "based on" LFS.
> 
> No glibc at all, and as little dynamic linking as I can manage.
> 
> -Bennett
> 

Buildroot started from LFS. It has diverged from the latter when 
uclibc and other system components grew and became a pseudo-distro. 
Now im trying to build a desktop using buildroot as a base. uClibc has 
specific requirements that just cant be met by LFS anymore.