Comment 10 for bug 527720

Steve Langasek dixit:

>We may yet want to move away from klibc on arm, but I don't see any

Actually, I’d quite like to get a working klibc on most linux-any
ports in the medium term. My package mksh has a /bin/mksh-static
which currently uses dietlibc, if available, eglibc otherwise. The
state of dietlibc is… poor (especially on Ubuntu/arm*), and I had
already gotten an older klibc patched up to do the job well enough
(not just the English “good enough”). It’s even smaller, works de-
cent and is pretty fast. (Actually I aim for replacing all ash and
similar shells, too, but that’s my secondary goal.)

With GNU libc, it’s a rather huge beast.

Please keep this in mind.

Thanks,
//mirabilos • tg@d.o
--
FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of
ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't
wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh