[yocto-ab] eglibc vs glibc

[William Mills]

Thanks all.  This is exactly the status summary I was looking for.
I have read through the links provided.

On 12/11/2013 04:53 PM, Hart, Darren wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 21:09 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 11:59 -0500, William Mills wrote:
>>>  From Linaro I understand that eglibc is nearing its last release.
>>> Linaro is planning the transition from eglibc to glibc.
>>> They are asking what gaps remain in glibc that are important to eglibc 
>>> users.
>>> We realize that embedded is the most likely where any gaps exist.
>>> Linaro toolchain builds eglibc but they turn on all the options so they 
>>> do not have a lot of experience on scaling down.
>>>
>>> Has oe-core already done or planned the transition to glibc?
>>
>> It has not done it and the transition is not planned as yet.
>>
>>> Have we identified any gaps?
>>
>> The biggest issue is the lack of config options to cut down the size of
>> eglibc.
>>

Yes that is what Linaro had identified as well.

>>> Has any one tried yp-tiny with glibc?
>>
>> No, it won't work due to the issue above.
> 
> An open work item here is to complete research into the limitations of
> uclibc to determine if the granular componentization of eglibc is really
> needed, or if uclibc might be a more appropriate option for poky-tiny.
> 
> Alternatively, given the complexity of working with the eglibc config
> options and integrating it into a product, another option would be to
> only make the division at individual libraries and use uclibc when truly
> tiny is required.
> 
> Ultimately, I think this alternative is where we will land. Especially
> if the resources can't be scratched together to do the port ourselves.
> 
> My 0.02, for whatever it's worth.
> 
> --
> Darren
> 

Thanks Darren.  I think pushing the extreme small size requirements to
uclibc might make sense.

>>
>>> Linaro toolchain group is asking if there are any gaps that need to be 
>>> closed.
>>> I don't know enough to guide them.
>>
>> The discussion was taken upstream:
>>
>> http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01276.html
>>
>> but they've said no unless someone steps up to do the work. We're kind
>> of in stalemate at the moment as I understand it. Khem or Mark may know
>> more about the current status but I don't think much as changed since
>> those emails.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>