Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jaco Kroon <jaco@××××××.za>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:44:39
1 Hi Thomas,
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 >
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.
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.
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.
36 Kind Regards,
37 Jaco


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>