From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2889 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Isaac Dunham Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:04:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20130307160417.86e9d017.idunham@lavabit.com> References: <20130306152913.59b2e776.idunham@lavabit.com> 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 1362701073 9357 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2013 00:04:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 00:04:33 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2890-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 08 01:04:56 2013 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 1UDknu-0004UD-8Z for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:04:54 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30569 invoked by uid 550); 8 Mar 2013 00:04:31 -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 30559 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2013 00:04:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=b3DPPyaBLN6OLxeeHsFeAYj+r59NQJ8ebWrQ8Ww0y4I6K+51B4HXvMD0LprnffcuTig0U17K/P/lHlvSKBhWKVYnP3mFbD+qJwt98sgFZnhJhvEwrFeF96iYzYm9p2bgeAMufC0Xl3cEEXHGvcGqHGzebqm0FKO1F3qQOXTR1JU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2889 Archived-At: On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:56:35 +0000 Justin Cormack wrote: > > What is the idea of packaging Musl for Debian? I can see several options > but none of them seem very plausible. No other package is likely to require > Musl. A Musl based Debian might be nice but that's a very different > requirement. Maybe I am missing something. Mainly the same reason they include klibc, dietlibc, and uclibc-source: a small libc for initrds, small static binaries, and cross-compilation. mksh, ngetty, and slidentd all refer to use of dietlibc, and klibc is used for initrds. musl's policy about maintaining ABI and availability as a shared library may prove advantageous to Debian, also. Up till now I've been speaking about reasons a musl package would be useful within a libc6-based distro; but a musl package is necessary for a Debian musl port. A good number of embedded systems start off Debian, Emdebian, or the uclibc port of Debian. The ability to build a Debian system based around musl may aid in adoption of musl, and Debian's attitude towards compatability makes it a good place to start. I should note that with multiarch, it actually would be possible to use a prepackaged musl for cross-compilation. HTH, Isaac Dunham