Re: [gentoo-musl] Which FTS library to use?

[Felix Janda]

Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 12/23/16 1:11 PM, Felix Janda wrote:
> > Aric Belsito wrote:
> >> This is mostly a question for Blueness, but in the Gentoo repository, we
> >> currently have sys-libs/fts-standalone -- but I cannot link elfutils
> >> against it (build-time issues).
> >>
> >> On the other hand, there is the musl-fts library
> >> (https://github.com/pullmoll/musl-fts) which does work (and I currently
> >> have in the musl-extras repository) but as Blueness put the
> >> fts-standalone package into the gentoo repository, is the maintainer,
> >> and wrote it, it seemed like a bad idea to use musl-fts instead. I'd
> >> like some advice.
> >>
> >> The main reason I ask is because in updating sys-fs/f2fs-tools, it gains
> >> the sys-libs/libselinux dependency, which won't build on musl without
> >> fts. IcedTea, Chromium, and SystemTap also require elfutils.
> >
> > A while ago, I've reported to blueness the duplication between
> > musl-fts and fts-standalone:
> >
> > https://github.com/blueness/fts-standalone/issues/1
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up again (and your working ebuild for it).
> >
> >
> > I also wanted to note that there is now a bug for elfutils with musl:
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602126
> >
> > Felix
> >
>
> I don't have any strong feeling about musl-fts vs fts-standalone.  What
> are your preferences and why?

I also do not have any strong preferences.

Since musl-fts seems to be in wider usage, and fts-standalone has caused
some trouble for Aric, I would prefer using musl-fts.

Best,
Felix