Re: dlopen'ing glibc linked libraries

[Gabriel Jacobo <gabomdq@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

>
> that's not quite true, sabotage linux builds mesa fine (with 2 minor
> patches).
> recipe:
> https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/pkg/mesalib#L19
> patches:
> https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/
> KEEP/mesalib-fpclassify.patch
> https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/
> KEEP/mesalib-strtod.patch
> https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/
> KEEP/mesalib-strtof.patch
>
>  nothing actually works with the SDL/musl binary.
>>
>
> basically what you should try to do is build all dependencies against musl.
>
>  So, will it ever work?
>>
>
> even if it would work, mixing glibc and musl linked things is far from
> optimal.
>
>
>>
Thanks for the response. Let me express again that my experiment assumes
there's binaries that you just can't rebuild against musl (nVidia binaries
for example) or that's not practical to do so (like every binary provided
by Ubuntu ;) ), and that's the fringe case that interests me the most right
now.
I would assume that if you rebuild all libraries against musl (or use SDL
in a distro that's based on musl such as Sabotage), things would just work.
But my question was oriented towards what's the goal for providing "full"
binary compatibility with glibc.


-- 
Gabriel.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2473 bytes --]