| 1 |
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Tom Gillespie wrote: |
| 2 |
> For the record I've had sbcl building and running on musl for months |
| 3 |
> without issue (at one point I even had static linking working). You |
| 4 |
> have to cross compile a musl version and then side load the binary |
| 5 |
> instead of using one of the distributed binaries. See |
| 6 |
> https://github.com/tgbugs/dockerfiles/blob/master/source.org#sbcl-bootstrap |
| 7 |
> for reference. See also |
| 8 |
> https://hub.docker.com/r/tgbugs/musl/tags?page=1&name=sbcl. |
| 9 |
Yes. Either cross-compiling, or (with some luck) using some other lisp for |
| 10 |
bootstrap. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Thus I'd very much appreciate if it sbcl were not masked on those profiles. |
| 13 |
The sbcl ebuild from the Gentoo tree is useless on musl. And hence it |
| 14 |
should be masked. Otherwise somebody would think that [s]he can simply |
| 15 |
emerge sbcl on a musl profile, and will be disappointed. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Andrey |
Archives