| 1 |
from "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:05:44 -0500 |
| 2 |
> On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi Thomas, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support |
| 7 |
> >>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a |
| 8 |
> >>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc |
| 9 |
> >>> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose |
| 10 |
> >>> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. |
| 11 |
> >>> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about |
| 12 |
> >>> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what |
| 13 |
> >>> little time I have towards musl. |
| 14 |
> >>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 15 |
> >>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 16 |
> >> Are you the only Gentoo developer working on musl and uclibc-ng? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I'm the only one working on uclibc-ng. There are some people helping |
| 19 |
> with musl, especially the overlay. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> >> One thing I might try with a Gentoo uclibc-ng system is convert to musl or glibc using crossdev. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> >> 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. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> It does seem that musl is winning the embedded libc race. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> >> There is a musl-cross-make cross-toolchain that can be built from non-musl or even non-Linux. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> >> https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > I've used crossdev in the past. It was a nasty experience, but I |
| 32 |
> > believe crossdev in Gentoo is getting better and better, and it supports |
| 33 |
> > many more targets. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I can't imagine crossdev could be nastier than Cross Linux From Scratch (CLFS). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
CLFS seems to have low activity, is updated only sporadically, and some of the commands have syntax errors and have to be modified to fit a different implementation of bash. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Even installing Linux kernel headers does not work, fails with error messages, strange to anybody familiar with FreeBSD and NetBSD. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Idea that Linux kernel headers need to be sanitized makes me wonder if this is an idiosyncrasy peculiar to Linux. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
"make headers_install" is not a trivial matter. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Yes it is, which is why I'm preparing pre-build stage3's on several |
| 46 |
> arches so you don't have to x-compile. I've done the nasty part for you. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Maybe explain on website what it takes to prepare a pre-build stage3 (or stage1 or 2?)? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
There are also several cross-toolchain systems such as Pengutronix (www.ptxdist.org), OpenADK (www.openadk.org), crosstool-ng (crosstool-ng.org) that can be configured for glibc, uclibc-ng, musl, bare metal or other arches. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> >> From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more user- and developer-friendly. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> >> 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. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> Correct, if I had the time, I'd continue to support both. But my time |
| 58 |
> is limited, so I need to concentrate. I'm just looking for anyone to |
| 59 |
> scream if I'm destroying their world by dropping uclibc-ng. If no one |
| 60 |
> does, then I'll begin the process of removing it from the tree. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> > Not doing embedded work at the moment, but just out of hand as of right |
| 63 |
> > now if I had to make a choice I'd definitely look at MUSL as first |
| 64 |
> > choice. So +1 for that suggestion. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> > Kind Regards, |
| 67 |
> Jaco |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Tom |
Archives