Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
Pages: (20) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

new topic new poll
Topic: wish list for the new version, dsl 5.0, could u add this tool?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
florian Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: Dec. 2006
Posted: May 20 2008,22:15 QUOTE

Has uclibc been considered for tinycore?
uclibc could make a great deal of size difference for tinycore. And as tinycore is built entirely from source, compilation with uclibc could be possible, couldn't it? Also as tinycore is a departure from previous DSL version, I believe compatiblity is much less of an issue.

If anything is required to check if tinycore would benefit from uclibc, I'm willing to give a hand.

DeliLinux ( is a mini desktop linux distro using uclibc and according to the website runs all its graphical apps smoothly with a 486 and 16Mb Ram.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
mikshaw Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004
Posted: May 21 2008,11:42 QUOTE

Maybe this was mentioned, but I don't remember....
Would existing extensions be compatible with uclibc? If not, it would be a big problem.

Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
clivesay Offline

Group: Guests
Posts: 935
Joined: Dec. 2003
Posted: May 21 2008,12:50 QUOTE

I guess I had been thinking that DSL 5 would be a big enough departure from the other versions that new extensions would need to be built. Many of the existing extensions wouldn't be attractive to use because the new structure of the core will allow the use of much more updated versions of the apps in the existing extensions.

Does this sound right?

Back to top
Profile PM MSN YIM 
Jason W Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 260
Joined: Nov. 2006
Posted: May 21 2008,13:21 QUOTE

My thoughts are that even though there are many extensions that would have to be rebuilt or just reworked for the 5.0 series anyway, going with uclibc would increase the headache factor of building extensions quite a bit.  Even if the base system worked well with it.  And many things like Opera that are only available as binaries would not work or work poorly.  That seems to be the reasons Puppy Linux ditched uclibc earlier:

I only have had brief experience with uclibc, so if I am wrong or if anyone else has had a more pleasant experience with it I would like to hear.  Uclibc, like busybox, has its place and purpose.  But I far prefer dealing with glibc if I have a choice.
Back to top
Profile PM 
lucky13 Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: May 21 2008,13:44 QUOTE

My limited experience with uclibc was frustrating, too. It's not a 1:1 replacement for glibc. Most programmers of commonly used applications and utilities write with a presumption that their code will be compiled against glibc.

I don't think average users should have to learn C to tweak *standard* code so they can compile against a non-standard library when the same *standard* code will compile using standard tools and libraries. What may be ideal or acceptable in an embedded environment doesn't always scale well for desktop use (and vice versa -- which is why uclibc and dietlibc and so on exist). Unless there's a primary goal of making tiny core oriented for embedded use (I hope it remains targeted at desktop computer use), I hope we can stay away from uclibc.

"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
95 replies since May 03 2008,07:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (20) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >/
new topic new poll
Quick Reply: wish list for the new version, dsl 5.0

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code