On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:05:00AM +0100, FRIGN wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:51:20 +0000 > sin <s...@2f30.org> wrote: > > > > Personally, I'd go with musl. What is your plan at the moment? > > > > I planned on going for musl, too. It seems to be the best option, > especially because we're planning to link stuff statically anyway. > Thus, there's no need to look out for a standard library which also > supports C++. > To avoid confusion in the future, we should think about updating the > wiki accordingly.
Are you planning on porting 9base only for the moment or are you thinking of doing general sta.li work? A build system for sta.li would be awesome to have.
