Closed steom closed 8 years ago
uClibc was originally designed to be used in embedded systems. It is less resource-demanding, and therefore performs better. glibc is more feature-rich, but requires a more powerful system. Thus, to my understanding, uClibc toolchain should be better for a router.
i've asked this because i've seen the new entware-ng project and i just wonder what are the differences with optware-ng? what are the features distinguish the projects? They seem to be the same thing.
Apart from uclibc-ng vs. glibc difference, the difference also lies in different packages available. You can try both and choose which you like most. If there're some packages missing in Optware-ng, create an Issue, and I'll try to add it as soon as I can. Lately, I've been busy with OpenJDK8, finally got it to work with Zero VM for all targets, now I'm trying to make it work with JamVM instead. When I'm done with it, I'll continue with other requested packages
Regarding ARMv7 routers the performance of optware-ng is better. So i choose optware-ng all the ways. and i think so should do all the asuswrt, tomato and dd-wrt users out there.
it's a shame that exist two distinct project for make the same thing instead to join the efforts...an ordinary linux story...
Optware was there long before Entware. At some point, Optware became deprecated, since the main person behind it (project manager Brian Zhou) retired. Entware guys chose to create a new project based on OpenWRT instead of upgrading Optware. Since I knew Optware build system well, I decided to try to resurrect it, hence the Optware-ng was born.
Yes, i know the story. Infact now that optware it's reborn i don't see the need of entware honestly.
In my opinion should be unified and named openware, enopware, opentware or enoptware :)
for ARMv7 EABI softfloat router, performance-wise which toolchain is better? Your uClibc-ng-1.0.6 with gcc-5.2.0 or glibc 2.22 with gcc 4.8.5 and kernel sources 2.6.36?