On 2015-08-27 01:48, Adam Kuklycz wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering why OpenWRT switched to musl -- is it purely because > uclibc hasn't actually maintained their code properly? That's only part of the reason. Aside from the maintainenance, the code quality of uClibc is also poor compared to musl. musl also has better runtime performance and uses less RAM.
> One of the things I have noticed since the CC trunk builds I did with > kernel 3.18.11 + uclibc is that the image sizes have ballooned out by a > fair bit. > > For example, a build on trunk r45705 which uses uclibc and kernel > 3.18.11 would allow for most features to be included in a build e.g. > openvpn, luci + ssl support, more connecting protocols than just pppoe > and so on with a router sporting 8MB of flash. > > Now with recent trunk builds, with musl and kernel 4.1.x, I've had to > cut features considerably just to make it fit. Just adding openvpn with > openssl support means that an image prior that built at 7MB would > balloon out to 8MB which would mean that the image would not be produced > as it is too big. Last time I compared musl vs uClibc images, the size difference was neglegible. I'd say it's more likely that the switch to Linux 4.1 caused the size increase (the kernel does get more bloated with each new release). - Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
