musl works in distro x-lsf-2010 - advice of use requested

musl works in distro x-lsf-2010 - advice of use requested

[anonymous]

Hi.  I have "new distro* compiling musl" (easy) - should it build pkgs 
against it?

http://sourceforge.net/p/x-lfs-2010/

(to build musl-libc, only required "-std=c99" added to CFLAGS, which is 
not default for gcc-4.4.5 which is used)

i have gnu libc6 and libc5 fully sourced and compiled (i can't say i'm 
too happy with the complexity but they build and run)

QUESTION: Should I try building gnu automake or other packages against 
musl-libc and offer the option to build against musl-libc?  Or is it 
more "no, use musl-libc for NEW embedded projects and leave libc6 libc5 
as they are for supporting (2010 era) linux bins"

x-lfs-2010 distro build all from scratch (350+ pkg) hands free 
overnight, and the end result need to be runtime libc6 and libc5-compat 
to run "unix bins" (ie, bins that would work in either slackware or 
debian because they are both unix and i386) and mostly: commercial 
mathematica around version 4

sure i could build some pkgs against musl-libc but for the big picture 
"what issues am i looking at for musl-libc to act as libc and 
libc5-compat" and would musl-libc like to see such a development ?

have a good one!

Re: musl works in distro x-lsf-2010 - advice of use requested

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* anonymous <johnandsara2@cox.net> [2016-05-01 17:19:21 -0400]:
> Hi.  I have "new distro* compiling musl" (easy) - should it build pkgs
> against it?
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/p/x-lfs-2010/
> 
> (to build musl-libc, only required "-std=c99" added to CFLAGS, which is not
> default for gcc-4.4.5 which is used)

no version of gcc defaults to -std=c99 and the
build system of musl handles the flags it needs.

> i have gnu libc6 and libc5 fully sourced and compiled (i can't say i'm too
> happy with the complexity but they build and run)
> 
> QUESTION: Should I try building gnu automake or other packages against
> musl-libc and offer the option to build against musl-libc?  Or is it more
> "no, use musl-libc for NEW embedded projects and leave libc6 libc5 as they
> are for supporting (2010 era) linux bins"
> 

for any libc it is important to be compatible with
existing code (otherwise why not invent a completely
new platform with new language and standard library?)

> x-lfs-2010 distro build all from scratch (350+ pkg) hands free overnight,
> and the end result need to be runtime libc6 and libc5-compat to run "unix
> bins" (ie, bins that would work in either slackware or debian because they
> are both unix and i386) and mostly: commercial mathematica around version 4
> 
> sure i could build some pkgs against musl-libc but for the big picture "what
> issues am i looking at for musl-libc to act as libc and libc5-compat" and
> would musl-libc like to see such a development ?
> 

executables linked against glibc are not supposed to
work with musl, but you should be able to build
packages from source against musl.

see the packages and patches in alpine or void linux.

it's also not impossible to have glibc on a musl based
system, but you need to be careful with the lib paths etc.

> have a good one!