| 1 |
> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support |
| 2 |
> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a |
| 3 |
> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc |
| 4 |
> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose |
| 5 |
> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about |
| 8 |
> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what |
| 9 |
> little time I have towards musl. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 12 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Are you the only Gentoo developer working on musl and uclibc-ng? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
One thing I might try with a Gentoo uclibc-ng system is convert to musl or glibc using crossdev. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
From what I see on the internet, there is more support for musl than uclibc-ng, and more people working with musl than with uclibc-ng. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There is a musl-cross-make cross-toolchain that can be built from non-musl or even non-Linux. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more user- and developer-friendly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Unless somebody wants to take over uclibc-ng for Gentoo, I say better for you, with your limited time, to drop uclibc-ng in favor of musl. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Tom |
Archives