Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?

[Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On 06/13/2013 10:15 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> My previous message removing a bitrotten and ill-conceived option group
> <http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01257.html> did not elicit any
> responses expressing interest in option groups at all.  So, I now ask:
> does anyone have a current use case for the option groups feature?  That
> is, is there still any significant use of EGLIBC in building new embedded
> GNU/Linux systems that are so space-constrained that the few MB taken up
> by all the EGLIBC shared libraries put together is so significant that the
> limited proportion of that space that can be saved through option groups
> actually matters?

Please do not remove this still useful feature (including --disable-versioning),
which makes embedded systems developers use eglibc rather than glibc.
Yes even now days space matter. Many embedded systems do NOT have now
days  smartphones specs.
They usually have _less_ than 128MB of ram/32MB of ROM storage
(and I worked on linux devices with less than that).
How many time at work, we were requested to study reduction of BOM cost.
Yes even 0.5$ of BOM cost down matter for an embedded system, and being
able to reduce memory footprint helped a lot.
On such systems, we do not care about about versioning, we upgrade all the
system firmware at once, so yes --disable-versioning is useful.

That said, unfortunately I can't see any slot of my time for the coming months
to actively work, as you required, on having this merged in glibc.

Cheers,
AWG

_______________________________________________
Patches mailing list
Patches@xxxxxxxxxx
http://eglibc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/patches