RE: [RFC] klibc requirements, round 2

[Torrey Hoffman]

Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:18:49PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
... 
> > 	- image viewer
> > 	- mkreiserfs
> 
> I think these are examples of misunderstanding what initramfs _can do_
> with what we (might) need a klibc to do.  
...
> These programs _might_ compile with a klibc, but I wouldn't 
> worry about
> it.  uClibc is what should be used for many of these custom 
> applications

Well, as the person who first mentioned mkreiserfs and the like,
I agree with you.  For the majority of systems out there which 
aren't using initrd now, a minimal klibc for an unmodified 
initramfs makes sense.

My concern is with the minority who are using initrd, and in
some cases a very customized initrd.  

The important thing, I think, is that it should be easy for
less-than-guru level hackers to add programs to the initramfs,
even if the program they want can't be linked with klibc.

This really comes down to: What will the build process be for
these initramfs images?

By the way, is initramfs intended to supercede initrd, or will 
they co-exist?  

Torrey