On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <p...@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > Ross
Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong fail-safe guarantees. I am taking that at face value as I haven't really done my own comparison of glibc/uclibc/musl. I've been following the news of musl development for a while though and I like the direction they're heading in. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: p...@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
