Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Rich Felker]

I was just looking back at the wishlist for 1.0 dated a little over a
year ago, and noticing that all but 3 items on it are completed. (The
incomplete ones are static-linked dlopen support, limited ability to
load/run glibc-linked apps/libs, and documentation.)

As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.

Rich

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Georgi Chorbadzhiyski]

On 24.4.2012 г. 03:31, Rich Felker wrote:
> I was just looking back at the wishlist for 1.0 dated a little over a
> year ago, and noticing that all but 3 items on it are completed. (The
> incomplete ones are static-linked dlopen support, limited ability to
> load/run glibc-linked apps/libs, and documentation.)
>
> As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
> the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
> release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
> scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
> 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
> bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
> possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.

There was a talk couple of months about relicensing musl to BSD or
similar license, what happened to that idea?

-- 
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski
http://georgi.unixsol.org/

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Georgi Chorbadzhiyski]

Around 04/24/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Felker scribbled:
> I was just looking back at the wishlist for 1.0 dated a little over a
> year ago, and noticing that all but 3 items on it are completed. (The
> incomplete ones are static-linked dlopen support, limited ability to
> load/run glibc-linked apps/libs, and documentation.)
> 
> As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
> the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
> release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
> scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
> 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
> bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
> possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.

Hi, there were talks about re-licensing musl to BSD like license, what
happened to that?

-- 
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski
http://georgi.unixsol.org/

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Georgi Chorbadzhiyski]

Around 05/02/2012 12:49 PM, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski scribbled:
> Around 04/24/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Felker scribbled:
>> I was just looking back at the wishlist for 1.0 dated a little over a
>> year ago, and noticing that all but 3 items on it are completed. (The
>> incomplete ones are static-linked dlopen support, limited ability to
>> load/run glibc-linked apps/libs, and documentation.)
>>
>> As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
>> the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
>> release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
>> scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
>> 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
>> bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
>> possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.
> 
> Hi, there were talks about re-licensing musl to BSD like license, what
> happened to that?

Sorry for asking the second time, I was unable to find my first e-mail /it
has gone to Junk folder because of failed SPF/. Again, sorry.

-- 
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski
http://georgi.unixsol.org/

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Solar Designer]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski wrote:
> Sorry for asking the second time, I was unable to find my first e-mail /it
> has gone to Junk folder because of failed SPF/. Again, sorry.

Why did it fail SPF?  Is this anything with the list setup?

I think we have the proper SPF record for lists.openwall.com:

$ host -t txt lists.openwall.com
lists.openwall.com descriptive text "v=spf1 mx ip4:195.42.179.200 -all"

Do you possibly use SPF along with mail forwarding from another address
of yours?  (This is a fundamental problem of SPF.)

Alexander

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Georgi Chorbadzhiyski]

Around 05/02/2012 02:08 PM, Solar Designer scribbled:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski wrote:
>> Sorry for asking the second time, I was unable to find my first e-mail /it
>> has gone to Junk folder because of failed SPF/. Again, sorry.
> 
> Why did it fail SPF?  Is this anything with the list setup?
> 
> I think we have the proper SPF record for lists.openwall.com:
> 
> $ host -t txt lists.openwall.com
> lists.openwall.com descriptive text "v=spf1 mx ip4:195.42.179.200 -all"
> 
> Do you possibly use SPF along with mail forwarding from another address
> of yours?  (This is a fundamental problem of SPF.)

Here are the headers that I received on the last email that I have sent to
the ML:

> Received: from mother.openwall.net ([::ffff:195.42.179.200])
>   by ns.unixsol.org with SMTP; Wed, 02 May 2012 12:54:32 +0300
>   id 0000000000144123.4FA10458.00007834
> Received-SPF: none SPF=HELO; sender=mother.openwall.net; remoteip=::ffff:195.42.179.200; remotehost=; helo=mother.openwall.net; receiver=ns.unixsol.org;
> Received-SPF: pass SPF=MAILFROM; sender=musl-return-788-gf=unixsol.org@lists.openwall.com; remoteip=::ffff:195.42.179.200; remotehost=; helo=mother.openwall.net; receiver=ns.unixsol.org;
> Received: (qmail 29787 invoked by uid 550); 2 May 2012 09:54:32 -0000
> Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
> Delivered-To: mailing list musl@lists.openwall.com
> Received: (qmail 29778 invoked from network); 2 May 2012 09:54:31 -0000
> Message-ID: <4FA1044C.90406@unixsol.org>
> Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:54:20 +0300
> From: Georgi Chorbadzhiyski <gf@unixsol.org>
> Organization: Unix Solutions Ltd. (http://unixsol.org)
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120314 Thunderbird/11.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: musl@lists.openwall.com
> CC: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
> References: <20120424003111.GN14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4FA10332.603@unixsol.org>
> In-Reply-To: <4FA10332.603@unixsol.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Subject: Re: [musl] Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9
> Received-SPF: fail SPF=FROM; sender=gf@unixsol.org; remoteip=::ffff:195.42.179.200; remotehost=; helo=mother.openwall.net; receiver=ns.unixsol.org;

The last line was the problem. Since openwall lists are sending the email
as me as sender, my spf checks fail. I have checks for X-Mailing-Lists header
but since ezmlm sets Mailing-List the checks fail. The problem is on my side.
I have fixed it, sorry for the noise.

-- 
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski
http://georgi.unixsol.org/

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Solar Designer]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:51:03PM +0300, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski wrote:
> > Received-SPF: pass SPF=MAILFROM; sender=musl-return-788-gf=unixsol.org@lists.openwall.com; remoteip=::ffff:195.42.179.200; remotehost=; helo=mother.openwall.net; receiver=ns.unixsol.org;
...
> > Received-SPF: fail SPF=FROM; sender=gf@unixsol.org; remoteip=::ffff:195.42.179.200; remotehost=; helo=mother.openwall.net; receiver=ns.unixsol.org;
> 
> The last line was the problem. Since openwall lists are sending the email
> as me as sender, my spf checks fail. I have checks for X-Mailing-Lists header
> but since ezmlm sets Mailing-List the checks fail. The problem is on my side.
> I have fixed it, sorry for the noise.

Oh, so you were checking not only envelope-from, but also header From.
In case someone else does that too, I've just relaxed the SPF record to
use "?all" instead of "-all".

Thanks, and sorry for the noise.

Alexander

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Isaac Dunham]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:49:38 +0300
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski <gf@unixsol.org> wrote:

> Around 04/24/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Felker scribbled:
> > As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
> > the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
> > release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
> > scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
> > 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
> > bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
> > possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.
> 
> Hi, there were talks about re-licensing musl to BSD like license, what
> happened to that?

Here's what he said:
|I'll definitely be making some licensing changes down the line. Please 
|give me some time to weigh the benefits of the different options and
|focus on the code, especially at this time while widespread deployment 
|is still a ways off. My idea right now (subject to change at my own whim
|or suggestions from the community) is that the license might change at
|the 0.9 or 1.0 milestone, especially if it looks like we could be
|positioned to push musl into widespread usage "in the wild" at that
|point.

I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet (for reasons not known to me).
(I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc)
-- 
Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>

Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:17:40PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> Here's what he said:
> [...]

Everybody's favorite topic again! :-)
Hope to get back to everyone on license topic soon.

> I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux
> variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about
> "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly
> impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet
> (for reasons not known to me).
> (I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc)

I would believe that it's possible to get smaller binaries with a
uClibc that's had lots of features turned off when the library was
built, meaning that those features are completely unavailable to
applications. On the other hand, I suspect musl will easily beat
uClibc in static linking size when uClibc is full-featured (UTF-8,
pthread, full malloc, stdio, hex floats in printf, ...) because musl
takes a lot more care not to have unnecessary cross-dependency between
.o files in the static lib. Still, some things are impossible to
optimize out with the linker - for example, printf always pulls in a
minimum amount of UTF-8 conversion code for %ls and %c.

Rich