Hi Thomas, On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support >> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a >> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc >> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose >> and which has now well supported in Gentoo. >> I know people want musl support, but does anyone even care about >> uclibc-ng? If not, I can work towards deprecating it and putting what >> little time I have towards musl. >> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. >> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] > Are you the only Gentoo developer working on musl and uclibc-ng? > > One thing I might try with a Gentoo uclibc-ng system is convert to musl or > glibc using crossdev. > > From what I see on the internet, there is more support for musl than > uclibc-ng, and more people working with musl than with uclibc-ng. > > There is a musl-cross-make cross-toolchain that can be built from non-musl or > even non-Linux. > > https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make
I've used crossdev in the past. It was a nasty experience, but I believe crossdev in Gentoo is getting better and better, and it supports many more targets. > From what I have seen, musl looks more promising than uclibc-ng, and more > user- and developer-friendly. > > Unless somebody wants to take over uclibc-ng for Gentoo, I say better for > you, with your limited time, to drop uclibc-ng in favor of musl. Not doing embedded work at the moment, but just out of hand as of right now if I had to make a choice I'd definitely look at MUSL as first choice. So +1 for that suggestion. Kind Regards, Jaco
