GNU C library is quite big. What about uClibc. I think DSL could work fine with uClibc uClibc homepageuCLibc = non-Debian binary compatibility.
People would be unable to download and install any Debian packages without installing GNU C.
uClibc is great for truely embedded distros like floppy disk systems, but in my opinion the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Now if you were starting your own Linux From Scratch distro that is also a livecd, this is a better choice.
Quote
veriservus: GNU C library is quite big. What about uClibc. I think DSL could work fine with uClibc uClibc homepage
Conversely, if you don't mind recompiling all your stuff, a DSL-alike system does in fact work (when I say all your stuff, I mean every binary in DSL. On that note, I've done it, and while, yes, it does take WEEKS to do, it does work. But cbagger's right. You'd never be able to use apt-get on an HD install. Thus... the project was back-burnered on my end.)If it were just about cd space then I wouldn't care which c library you used(yay for squashfs), but when I run dsl on my 32mb of RAM computer I know that saving 20% of ram because of uclibc would be great. I am currently using the gentoo-embedded stage 2 install to make myself a nice little distro to put on this old computer. Now that I got kdrive up and running I will probably drop dsl off of it.
I love dsl and recommend it to friends, and so far its been absolutely great on this old computer, but I wanted a 2.6 kernel (which made that old computer hum when I choose cfq as my i/o scheduler) and the absolute lowest amount of memory usage.
I hope you guys do well in the future, dsl is the only decent distro for old computers out there. I plan on making my build as almost a direct copy.you could use uwoody http://people.debian.org/~andersee - debian built with uclibc - as a baseNext Page...
original here.