Hello Rich, On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:50:43 -0400 Rich Felker wrote: > I don't want it abandoned. That's why I'm asking and trying to gauge > if there's interest in maintaining it separately. I agree that it > meets some people's needs well enough and it's convenient, but I feel > like having it as something you fetch/install separately would be > better ux/presentation in many ways, in that it wouldn't suggest it's > the "right" way to use musl and would ensure that users are aware > they're using something that has limited functionality, rather than > thinking they're hitting problems with musl. I use musl in teaching, because it is the only variant of the C library where I can have full standard conformance for atomics and threads. The university system on which the students are working is something that I have not much control of, and forcing it to allways have the latest .dep package of musl installed was quite a challenge. So anything that changed that situation, would make this even more fragile. Generally, I think that are a lot of people out there that don't completely control their developement environment. I would be nice if withdrawing musl-gcc from musl could wait until the replacement is a well-established package in the major distributions. On the other hand I agree that it would probably be a good idea to have a compiler wrapper package that is independent of musl and that allows to combine more or less any compiler with any of the C libraries. It is just annoying that the compiler frontends don't have easy to use options for this in the first place. Thanks Jens -- :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS ::: :: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 :: :: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 :: :: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::