**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Sep 12 03:00:01 2017 Sep 12 20:41:00 otavio, hi, around? Sep 12 20:45:37 ant_home: yes Sep 12 20:45:41 hello Sep 12 20:46:06 I see you're actively supporting the initramfs framework Sep 12 20:46:32 we did pull meta-initramfs long ago out of meta-oe Sep 12 20:46:45 now, maybe it is time to merge back Sep 12 20:47:16 it adds the klibc utils, shared and static Sep 12 20:47:37 iirc we had some initialimage using th eold framework Sep 12 20:47:54 in oe-classic I mean Sep 12 20:48:27 pls look at meta-initramfs and say if it seems a good idea to you Sep 12 20:48:28 ant_home: it'd be nice indeed Sep 12 20:48:29 thanks Sep 12 20:49:04 ant_home: only thing which is not clear to me is why use klibc? Sep 12 20:50:29 for size, dunno who needs it nowadays Sep 12 20:51:04 the cpio can be less than half of the glibc equivalent Sep 12 20:51:21 honestly I am not sure it is need; I made a 3.3mib with glibc Sep 12 20:51:48 ant_home: either way adding the rest of features are more important than klibc; klibc can be added next Sep 12 20:52:04 we also have musl now Sep 12 20:52:22 true but the results are not the same in my case Sep 12 20:52:55 khem is maintaining klibc, now even with clang Sep 12 20:53:16 ant_home: oh ... in this case it'd be straightforward Sep 12 20:53:28 we'' ask him as well Sep 12 20:53:33 ant_home: you intend to put it in oe-core or as a layer? Sep 12 20:53:55 from meta-initramfs layer back to meta-oe/meta-initramfs Sep 12 20:54:21 we split the initramfs stuff after oe classic Sep 12 20:54:39 so this layer was created for kexecboot and klibc Sep 12 20:56:19 I could put all this in meta-handheld as well, the BSP layer using it...but then it would disappear from khem's radar ;) Sep 12 20:58:06 otavio: I don't like to have two meta-initramfs around ;) Sep 12 20:59:29 I once talked with khem about splitting the layer, can't find the logs **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Sep 12 23:44:56 2017 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Wed Sep 13 03:00:00 2017