From: Sven Conrad ([email protected])
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 10:57:55 CEST
> > from approximately 1200K in size to approximately 600K.
whow, that is a great job done. Just a year ago, a frind of mine has to
bring linux on a ppc embedded system. He has to use glibc .... and we cry.
Glibc seemed to be planed as a big all you can eat pot of spagetti (pardon to
all italians and pasta fans) .
>
> Some shell script which combine command as "nm" and "strip", maybe.
>
nope. If you strip all symbols, ld.so can't work any more (this did
dynamic linking!).
> >
> > Is mulinux using glibc at all? What's the difference between glibc and
> libc? Means it gnu-ish?
> >
>
name style: when a new major-version number is introduced, it is
recommendet to get a new name. So they start calling libc6 as glibc.
libc.so.6 is VERY incompatible to libc.so.5! The crown is, that they allso
changed ld.so in incompatible (and idiotic) way.
> I'm not fully informed, sorry. Maybe glibc1 is libc5 and glibc2 is
libc6?
> mah! A Zen mistery. Anycase, libc5 in muLinux is
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 432684 Dec 8 1998 libc.so.5.4.13
>
> without symbol's stripping.
>
Oh yes, and this is very tiny! SuSE 5.3 (the last libc.5 system from SuSE)
has a
1.820.369 - libc.so.5.4.46)
/sven
-- Sent through GMX FreeMail - https://www.gmx.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:13 CET