from "Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:05:44 -0500 > On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: > >>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support > >>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a > >>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc > >>> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose > >>> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. > >>> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about > >>> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what > >>> little time I have towards musl. > >>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. > >>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] > >> Are you the only Gentoo developer working on musl and uclibc-ng?
> I'm the only one working on uclibc-ng. There are some people helping > with musl, especially the overlay. > >> One thing I might try with a Gentoo uclibc-ng system is convert to musl or > >> glibc using crossdev. > >> 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. > It does seem that musl is winning the embedded libc race. > >> There is a musl-cross-make cross-toolchain that can be built from non-musl > >> or even non-Linux. > >> https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make > > I've used crossdev in the past. It was a nasty experience, but I > > believe crossdev in Gentoo is getting better and better, and it supports > > many more targets. I can't imagine crossdev could be nastier than Cross Linux From Scratch (CLFS). CLFS seems to have low activity, is updated only sporadically, and some of the commands have syntax errors and have to be modified to fit a different implementation of bash. Even installing Linux kernel headers does not work, fails with error messages, strange to anybody familiar with FreeBSD and NetBSD. Idea that Linux kernel headers need to be sanitized makes me wonder if this is an idiosyncrasy peculiar to Linux. "make headers_install" is not a trivial matter. > Yes it is, which is why I'm preparing pre-build stage3's on several > arches so you don't have to x-compile. I've done the nasty part for you. Maybe explain on website what it takes to prepare a pre-build stage3 (or stage1 or 2?)? There are also several cross-toolchain systems such as Pengutronix (www.ptxdist.org), OpenADK (www.openadk.org), crosstool-ng (crosstool-ng.org) that can be configured for glibc, uclibc-ng, musl, bare metal or other arches. > >> From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more > >> user- and developer-friendly. > >> 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. > Correct, if I had the time, I'd continue to support both. But my time > is limited, so I need to concentrate. I'm just looking for anyone to > scream if I'm destroying their world by dropping uclibc-ng. If no one > does, then I'll begin the process of removing it from the tree. > > Not doing embedded work at the moment, but just out of hand as of right > > now if I had to make a choice I'd definitely look at MUSL as first > > choice. So +1 for that suggestion. > > Kind Regards, > Jaco Tom
