[PATCH] Static linking binaries with uClibc

[Laurent Bercot]

> I'm not convinced it is actually that important to have the weak
> behaviour of _stdio_init, for a number of reasons:
> 
>   1. This has been broken for a long time (years?) and nobody cared to fix it.
>   2. How many useful programs are capable of running without stdio?
> The few that are probably do not
>      form a complete system so should probably be combined with others
> that do use stdio and so would
>      benefit from linking shared anyway e.g. add busybox to your
> systemn and you just lost.

 Hello,

 I do have a complete system that does not use stdio.
 You can find parts of it at http://www.skarnet.org/software/
 The key parts are yet unreleased, but none of my software uses anything
else in the libc than very basic functions such as memcpy(), and malloc.

 I'm not the only one using alternative APIs. The runit package is also
stdio-free. qmail, djbdns, fnord, and other embeddable servers work without
stdio. We're actually going to great lengths to avoid stdio; even
if you haven't heard of it, there's a solid software base using better
designed stuff.

 I'm a newcomer to uClibc; I've been using dietlibc for years (hence
the posting address); that's why I haven't participated here before.
For various reasons, I'm switching over to uClibc.
 I'm currently bulding an initramfs with static binaries for an embedded
device. (I'm not using busybox for now, although that could change.)

 I would very much appreciate NOT pulling in stdio into said binaries.

 Pulling in stuff people don't need is going the way of the glibc, and
the uClibc FAQ explicitly claims that uClibc does things differently.
 Please make sure it keeps living up to that claim. Please do not be
careless.

-- 
 Laurent