Message-ID: <441FF40A.1050501@tls.msk.ru>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:39:38 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, klibc@zytor.com,
       torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: Merge strategy for klibc
References: <441F0859.2010703@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <441F0859.2010703@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 981
Lines: 24

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/