| 1 |
On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Thomas, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support |
| 6 |
>>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a |
| 7 |
>>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc |
| 8 |
>>> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose |
| 9 |
>>> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. |
| 10 |
>>> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about |
| 11 |
>>> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what |
| 12 |
>>> little time I have towards musl. |
| 13 |
>>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 14 |
>>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 15 |
>> Are you the only Gentoo developer working on musl and uclibc-ng? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm the only one working on uclibc-ng. There are some people helping |
| 18 |
with musl, especially the overlay. |
| 19 |
|
| 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 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> There is a musl-cross-make cross-toolchain that can be built from non-musl or even non-Linux. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I've used crossdev in the past. It was a nasty experience, but I |
| 33 |
> believe crossdev in Gentoo is getting better and better, and it supports |
| 34 |
> many more targets. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Yes it is, which is why I'm preparing pre-build stage3's on several |
| 37 |
arches so you don't have to x-compile. I've done the nasty part for you. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
>> From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more user- and developer-friendly. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> 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. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Correct, if I had the time, I'd continue to support both. But my time |
| 46 |
is limited, so I need to concentrate. I'm just looking for anyone to |
| 47 |
scream if I'm destroying their world by dropping uclibc-ng. If no one |
| 48 |
does, then I'll begin the process of removing it from the tree. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Not doing embedded work at the moment, but just out of hand as of right |
| 52 |
> now if I had to make a choice I'd definitely look at MUSL as first |
| 53 |
> choice. So +1 for that suggestion. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Kind Regards, |
| 56 |
> Jaco |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 61 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 62 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 63 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 64 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives