From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12673 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Joe Duarte Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Need to update the musl website, especially comparisons to other libcs Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 19:28:09 -0700 Message-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f2508432de40568d45751" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522635984 22295 195.159.176.226 (2 Apr 2018 02:26:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 02:26:24 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12687-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Apr 02 04:26:20 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f2pAo-0005i5-Um for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 04:26:19 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32249 invoked by uid 550); 2 Apr 2018 02:28:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 32178 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2018 02:28:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bDCJQtCzOt/L8M9tHuRHCJtnCharX1jI3/PdRE8+Dao=; b=B50M0NLgDDB1ADE8j/HD7IIVjuFa3hvQJ5ZLnmijaGe9MYxvIUBJthDOG99snH+kgZ CLMHj6Vkjds9IwlgPYRtj+0iQn0Dl7/XicaO50+Y0Vng/AuH9kG2B2c9UoNWhGTg3L5f dQPDkonf+dbAUNABfv8R26fv4+G9LGmGymSViCdtOjtJTKknFmqJn/+3/tZj8ojWoXrx CgPDzwAH/iN4IGZgrmInH8bYP4grqMcFQ3QCnsaXRk9VGEDPZhsIBCPmY0/sqWtZLbUv 7jRypmV7Y45eyUFGRYAoUgVazA7x4M7/O62xmNrjpENrpKaqM4j20vKPhn2v7b1BwXIe N6hg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bDCJQtCzOt/L8M9tHuRHCJtnCharX1jI3/PdRE8+Dao=; b=BAyoPiz+EzCybn2Fnp6tL30pTQjVuXSAU2rvIj1J87VWPv2OMdTd27vf2gCedlU28G 4wY0KF4+aTix+8RiNjI++HLFHl6F8Bigr714z1QJw9JR3wwvf+mXyJQKwk4H+F9PHqpB Oqt4q957/aFlQRHkYxe5D6fVhaFduOIhFbRqEY3ToEIKYKTlqWVnq8xZ1lOwULSO5C04 bMgxz1WJA2InUAFbnPc/Oh8pkZlNul4MnqtsUvYSD8RF9mHDl4DIWK85BtrExHJBePVK K4jl8n3/plmyoMjnyW8/nGmX/opAnDdEZRK7Nn7rxLfD6ftl/+b6hegFsOTiNx3i8Fj4 P2fg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCdi4RDdZKAxGnwdLATbmyCV1//QJoLSxxervqMCirAl/EQjPpe QyW6g5P0z7/rOKnpeXX70BETGQGYhuXdoHxls+Bpudk5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48OqnGHhAMF5fCxP5ifkUhMbxEgrDkGI/nG8h+cGFGRYCx2/IRV7Y4dTtZn8rvkExbi4KjsIOYnDCF58NBWtDc= X-Received: by 10.129.85.144 with SMTP id j138mr4374006ywb.133.1522636089927; Sun, 01 Apr 2018 19:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12673 Archived-At: --001a113f2508432de40568d45751 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all (mostly Rich) =E2=80=93 The comparison between musl and glibc, uClib= c, et al is getting pretty dated at this point. You compare musl 1.1.5, which is 14 releases back, with glibc 2.19, which is more than four years old. It's especially hard for readers to establish the necessary context because there are no release notes anywhere on the musl website: https://www.musl-libc.org/ I always have to use Google to find the release notes, which are on a subdomain and git tree (https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/WHATSNEW) that isn't linked to or mentioned on the main website. I think it would be helpful for prospective musl adopters to be able to see a comparison of modern musl with modern glibc, Bionic, etc. And it would be helpful to have the release notes a click away. There's plenty of room on the homepage for a link to release notes, for example. Here's a quick screenshot of the page: https://imgur.com/a/KAwIJ I can help with the website tweaks if you need it. I'm not very good at benchmarking C libraries, so the comparison section that focuses on performance would probably have to be you, Szabolcs, or other sufficiently skilled developers. Also, I suggest adding dates to the release notes. Dates are very helpful in a few different ways, including being a signal for how actively a project is being maintained and improved. Cheers, Joe --001a113f2508432de40568d45751 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all (mostly Rich) =E2=80=93 The comparison between m= usl and glibc, uClibc, et al is getting pretty dated at this point. You com= pare musl 1.1.5, which is 14 releases back, with glibc 2.19, which is more = than four years old.

It's especially hard for re= aders to establish the necessary context because there are no release notes= anywhere on the musl website:=C2=A0= https://www.musl-libc.org/

I always have to use Go= ogle to find the release notes, which are on a subdomain and git tree (https://git.musl-= libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/WHATSNEW) that isn't linked to or mentioned= on the main website.

I think it would be helpful for= prospective musl adopters to be able to see a comparison of modern musl wi= th modern glibc, Bionic, etc. And it would be helpful to have the release n= otes a click away. There's plenty of room on the homepage for a link to= release notes, for example. Here's a quick screenshot of the page:=C2= =A0https://imgur.com/a/KAwIJ

I can help with the website tweaks if you need it. I'm= not very good at benchmarking C libraries, so the comparison section that = focuses on performance would probably have to be you, Szabolcs, or other su= fficiently skilled developers.

Also, I suggest adding = dates to the release notes. Dates are very helpful in a few different ways,= including being a signal for how actively a project is being maintained an= d improved.

Cheers,

Joe
=
--001a113f2508432de40568d45751--