On 10/29/15 10:42 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to get everyone’s opinion on the libcs we maintain in OE-Core, > as of now, we have > > glibc + cross localedef + kconfig patches which are left overs from eglibc > days
I do find the above useful -- include the kconfig part. > uclibc - which is more of less unmaintained I've never used uclibc with the Yocto Project framework. I think musl is a lot more compelling moving forward. > Its a significant effort to keep forward porting the kconfig changes since it > touches everywhere in glibc, (I do it in my local glibc tree) > almost every week there is a commit in upstream glibc which breaks the > kconfig patches, I know there are distribution profiles > like poky-tiny which uses glibc in this capacity, and may be then their are > other custom one’s made on top, I would like us to not carry major > patches which almost makes our component a fork due to obvious maintenance > cost. I think there is viable alternatives to tiny libcs in musl now. > > I would like to make a proposal for 2.1 release where > > 1. Drop kconfig support in glibc and we become inline with upstream I really would like to keep kconfig support still. It's definitely useful, but it's of course not the main workflow. > 2. Move musl support to OE-Core from meta-musl I wouldn't object to his. > 3. Drop uclibc or leave it in current broken state, I would like to pull it > out into a layer in meta-openembedded and we can leave the core plumbing as > it is in OE-Core I definitely wouldn't object to this. I do think keeping the uclibc hooks and such in oe-core for the time being does make sense. It would be interesting to know how often it is still being used... (and I do think musl is a better replacement for this use-case.) > 4. Poky-tiny switches to use musl I think there are two usages here.. one is a small 'glibc' interface where the API is glibc compatible, but restricted.. And a "don't care about the libc, as long as it works and is small" use case which was traditionally uclibc, but now can be fulfilled by musl. I do still think a 'tiny' glibc is useful -- however with musl being a lot more capable of working then uclibc was, the usefulness may be diminishing. > may other disto’s have moved to using musl as system C library e.g. alpine > linux, openwrt, and I am also deploying it in real products > its pretty mature and well maintained with very healthy community around it. > Right now meta-musl is capable of building and running > core-image-sato/core-image-weston for all supported Qemu arches in OE-Core, > the amount of software it can build is no less than uclibc > support in OE-Core. This certainly makes it worthwhile to consider putting into oe-core proper. Again, I have no objections to introducing musl. --Mark > if collectively we think, this is a good move then I can work on all of above > items in early phases of 2.1 so we can settle any > outstanding issues, due to the shuffle especially in poky-tiny > > Thoughts ? > > -Khem > > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
