Re: What would make musl 1.2?

[Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@stormmq.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

Actually, answering my own question - a quick back of the packet
calculation suggests about 8,500 packages in OpenBSD, vs 65,000+ for Debian
- although it does depend how you count. And there are a lot more
'unofficial' Debian repos and packages, too... There's no doubt that
OpenBSD includes the most popular.

On 13 February 2015 at 15:20, Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@stormmq.com> wrote:

> Do they use a third party support lib?
>
> If it's possible to support use cases with a third party lib, then I'm
> less concerned - provided that that lib also works with musl. Given the
> nature of ucontext, that may not be so. A musl native solution would be
> optimal for performance - and performance is a common reason for going down
> this route. It allows for far greater scale in certain server designs then
> either thread-per-connection or a thread-pool can do.
>
> Out of interest, how many packages are in the OpenBSD repository? How does
> it compare to Debian's, say? For me, Debian's repo contents is a yardstick
> of what Linux + Musl could be expected to work with.
>
>
> On 13 February 2015 at 15:08, Anthony J. Bentley <anthony@cathet.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Raphael Cohn writes:
>> > Is there any possibility of adding in the ucontext.h functions? I know
>> > they're deprecated, but they're still widely used - particularly by go
>> for
>> > goroutines, IIRC.
>>
>> It's worth mentioning that OpenBSD doesn't have ucontext, so given the
>> size of its package repository (which also contains Go), ucontext can't
>> be *that* widely used.
>>
>> --
>> Anthony J. Bentley
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2423 bytes --]