| 1 |
Hi Thomas, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support |
| 5 |
>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a |
| 6 |
>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc |
| 7 |
>> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose |
| 8 |
>> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. |
| 9 |
>> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about |
| 10 |
>> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what |
| 11 |
>> little time I have towards musl. |
| 12 |
>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 13 |
>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 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 |
I've used crossdev in the past. It was a nasty experience, but I |
| 25 |
believe crossdev in Gentoo is getting better and better, and it supports |
| 26 |
many more targets. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more user- and developer-friendly. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> 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. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Not doing embedded work at the moment, but just out of hand as of right |
| 33 |
now if I had to make a choice I'd definitely look at MUSL as first |
| 34 |
choice. So +1 for that suggestion. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Kind Regards, |
| 37 |
Jaco |
Archives