From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2393 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Isaac Dunham Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Summary of 1.0 marketing plan/scheme/nefarious plot from IRC. Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:18:48 -0800 Message-ID: <20121201001848.62b99ad1.idunham@lavabit.com> References: <60202.132.241.44.242.1354242108.squirrel@lavabit.com> <1354327484.2190.28@driftwood> <20121201040620.GE20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354349945 28143 80.91.229.3 (1 Dec 2012 08:19:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 08:19:05 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2394-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Dec 01 09:19:18 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TeiI9-0008RG-If for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:19:17 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 14028 invoked by uid 550); 1 Dec 2012 08:19:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 14004 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2012 08:19:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=NdPQieLCpNsgzRYS6iBE8y0UEa8J16O8MsNWBDISt5px1vxMezLUUd1K+0UN3bMb3QHDdontoErJLVYFU0mQqKakc4bSguVyxbKoscDzHKlDgXANk4NBJ3J8SnTlyApswuC6doYQ/6GlaUhAkIih3T0qonY0wf2YJF67tV8FDVg=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; In-Reply-To: <20121201040620.GE20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2393 Archived-At: On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:06:20 -0500 Rich Felker wrote: > > > > I'm tempted to analyze each libc variant: eglibc, uClibc, klibc, > > dietlibc, newlib. Look at it, figure out what specifically its users > > get out of it, figure out if musl can meet their needs. > > I can give you the short version... > > uClibc I think you know. :-) > > klibc is probably only relevant to initrd. In principle it's a lot > like Bionic -- a "thin" libc that said "screw standards as long as we > can provide the libc functionality needed in our very-limited domain". clone() & pthreads are unsupported, because it's not threadsafe. klibc does have one very large advantage over musl, especially wrt. intrds: It supports most Linux arches (musl would need to port to several more before becoming a full replacement). Arches they support but we don't: alpha, cris, ia64 (static only), parisc, ppc64, s390, s390x, sparc. Of those, Debian officially supports ia64, ppc64, s390, and sparc (they have sparc 32-bit userland on sparc64). s390x, parisc, and alpha are unofficial ports. klibc also has a few untested ports: m32r, m68k, arm-thumb, sh, sparc64. > dietlibc's user base seems to be mostly fefe/djb fans, and maybe > people making rescue disks and such. It's not secure or robust enough > for internet-facing use or for many embedded uses. > > newlib's niche is systems with no kernel, or kernels very different > from POSIX-oriented ones. I don't think it would be used on any > systems any of the other libcs you mentioned get used on. It also _is_ used on Linux. newlib on Linux is LGPL, and has more features than other platforms. newlib is a pretty random assortment: it looks like someone tried to collect all the permissive code they could find and call it a libc... > Among these, I think the only two against which musl wins in all > respects are klibc and dietlibc. As for the others: -- Isaac Dunham