Re: [dev] How about sta.li ?

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> Agreed, but what about other libcs? I'm astonished glibc has come up
> at all. Is dietlibc really that inadequate? Or uclibc? I brought up
> dietlibc first because as far as I know it doesn't even have dynamic
> linking. If it is missing necessary features, perhaps it might even
> be easier to add those features than to bring glibc to heel.

Isn't dietlibc GPL'd? Wouldn't this require that any binary
distributions of statically linked programs also be distributed under
the terms of the GPL?

Josh Rickmar
Received on Sun Aug 01 2010 - 14:35:05 CEST