| 1 |
I think the deal breaker for some people using uclibc over musl is being |
| 2 |
able to choose to include individual components to make it even smaller. |
| 3 |
Another possibility why is musl doesn't straight drop in replace all of |
| 4 |
glibc's non posix quirks that legacy software depends on could make for |
| 5 |
some trouble. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Tue, May 3, 2016, 10:25 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On 02/05/16 05:27 PM, waltdnes@××××××××.org wrote: |
| 10 |
> > Let me know offline if/when you need a beta tester. I have QEMU and |
| 11 |
> > an ancient 32-bit-only Atom netbook that could really use a smaller |
| 12 |
> > libc. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Is musl a good choice perhaps? iirc it's support right now is better |
| 16 |
> than uclibc... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
Archives