From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6040 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: libhybris and musl? Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:08:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20140901210823.GF12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <25172046.n8KGkBYA4f@krypton> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409605732 9716 80.91.229.3 (1 Sep 2014 21:08:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 21:08:52 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6047-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Sep 01 23:08:45 2014 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 1XOYq4-00065L-U7 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 23:08:37 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7277 invoked by uid 550); 1 Sep 2014 21:08:36 -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 7268 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2014 21:08:36 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25172046.n8KGkBYA4f@krypton> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6040 Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 10:55:26AM +0200, Jens Staal wrote: > Hi > > Has anyone tried if libhybris will emulate the bionic libc properly on top of > musl libc? Alternatively, are there plans for bionic binary/source > compatibility in musl like the glibc compatibility (or would this contribute > to bloat?). > > I was mostly curious to look into the possiblility of building AOSP (or Mer) > with musl instead of bionic (or glibc in the case of Mer), but for Android app > (those built with NDK) compatibility, one would then need libhybris. > > right now just thinking aloud - no real plans at the moment :) While I haven't look at the details for how it works, I'm fairly doubtful that using libhybris would be practical. My guess is that you'll find it fairly glibc-specific, but perhaps more importantly I'm not sure what benefit you would get from having apps built against Bionic using musl. If you have particular aims in mind, let me know, but my feeling is that it would be a lot more practical to just fix up the things Bionic is doing that are gratuitously different/broken to get to a point where programs using Bionic run cleanly side by side with musl. But if the issue is binary apps using native NDK code with the Bionic ABI, but where you want the non-native code to run on a musl-linked Dalvik rather than a Bionic-linked one, and if this all takes place in the same process context, then maybe something like libhybris really is needed. I'm quite interested in this project as a prototype for how Android could be moved from Bionic to musl, and (optionally, but I think this is the right direction) steered back from its gratuitous incompatibilities in filesystem layout, handling of dns, user/group lookups, etc. and re-unified with Linux. Please keep us informed if you make any interesting progress! Rich