From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2987 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: LM Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Will musl work as a lsb alternative? (was Re: [musl] re: musl setup attempt) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:11:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20130326184037.b97e4c63.idunham@lavabit.com> <1364392705.18069.0@driftwood> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1364397097 10052 80.91.229.3 (27 Mar 2013 15:11:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:11:37 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2988-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 27 16:12:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UKs13-0001Nn-Er for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:11:53 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 12160 invoked by uid 550); 27 Mar 2013 15:11:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 12152 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2013 15:11:29 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=u9DtgYSe1d+LX1gLE0HH+f+oE9aqdFyVKO9U8C6biq8=; b=rliGh3K8U/RGSZtG12lhEOQcRdQlr1yzAaJI0yhkrO2cP7r5GXi0Eu60dCSLa9akdB YZf+huQHnFC8T38/yU5zcsBJ/1X2vNXyGPiNaYsKb1nvSdaPIfXcRALijaQZsBgME+qP 4DWPEi1rSkGn/SKiF7d+QSyJGdMCu6vGsqz4XvlXC4LKORraZHTjjGAIgW3e3WnPavff 5z53xCqYE1QZnmrV3Bocmzd/as+iG1CPQdBwEy5kqWI+ynj1WAtu6SmJC1RsKR+uPvj/ Exs9q7AV/nIipz6UcSueI0qPfICH23hxhTnpB8L3tLRdI/cphjMbotYHiTG0LT8QKdMS ltRw== X-Received: by 10.14.200.137 with SMTP id z9mr56366590een.20.1364397077519; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:11:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1364392705.18069.0@driftwood> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2987 Archived-At: On 3/27/13, Rob Landley wrote: > The size penalty using something like uClibc or musl is fairly small, > and > the need to dlopen() things to make network resolution work are glibc > bugs > that don't apply to other C libraries. That is one thing I really like about the glibc alternatives. > I have prebuilt uClibc toolchains at http://landley.net/aboriginal/bin > (the > cross-compiler-$ARCH.tar.bz2 files) if you want to try that. Add the > "bin" > subdirectory of that tarball to your $PATH and use CROSS_COMPILE=$ARCH- > as > your prefix (and yes you need the trailing dash on the prefix name or > it'll > try to use i686cc instead of i686-cc). Think I'll give things a try with musl first. (I really like the friendly licensing with musl.) Even though I intend to supply all source code for the project I'm working on, my personal preference is toward MIT and BSD licensing over LGPL and GPL when it's available. I have done some building of source with uClibc in the past and I appreciate your mentioning it in this context. That does give a third alternative (besides musl and lsbcc/lsbc++). Thank you very much for the link to the toolchain. > Really: significant effort to avoid static linking -- not worth it. Sta.li has a great article on this ( http://sta.li/faq ) that I really like. It was definitely one of the options I was considering for my project. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Laura