Re: Removing glibc from the musl .2 ABI

["A. Wilcox" <awilfox@adelielinux.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1444 bytes --]

On 07/16/19 22:37, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:58:38PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
>> (Full disclosure: I am the principal author of gcompat.)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that gcompat has matured, I was wondering if perhaps musl should
>> consider dropping the glibc ABI guarantees when the "2 ABI" lands.
>>
>> This would make the LFS64 symbol mess completely moot.
> 
> This is separate from the .2 ABI topic, but what would you think about
> removing glibc ABI-compat from the current .1 ABI and replacing it
> with enhanced gcompat? I was thinking ldso could load libgcompat
> instead of returning a reference to itself for DT_NEEDED referencing
> libc.so.6, and we could move all ABI-compat symbols into gcompat.
> 
> The reason I bring it up is that ripping out the LFS64
> unwantedly-linkable stuff while keeping it as ABI-only is looking like
> more of a pain than I expected.
> 
> Rich


We would be more than happy to work with you on that.

Would gcompat then become a runtime requirement for glibc apps on musl?
What would musl do if gcompat isn't installed on a system?  What about
things like libm and libdl, which I've seen some apps force DT_NEEDED
anyway when built against musl?

Just trying to make sure the community has a clear view of what this
looks like before we jump in.

Best,
--arw


-- 
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
https://www.adelielinux.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]