Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/6/2021 01:08, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> I was using uclibc-ng builds for MIPS to build netboot images between 2017 >> and 2019 to refine my build processes. uclibc-ng still produces smaller >> overall binaries and libs for the netboot than musl does (usually ~1MB >> smaller, which is actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Thomas Mueller
> I was using uclibc-ng builds for MIPS to build netboot images between 2017 > and 2019 to refine my build processes. uclibc-ng still produces smaller > overall binaries and libs for the netboot than musl does (usually ~1MB > smaller, which is actually significant, especially on SGI IP22 systems).

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/5/2021 16:05, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: >> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Thomas Mueller
from "Anthony G. Basile" date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:05:44 -0500 > On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: > > 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 s

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote: > 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

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] acct-group.eclass: Support ACCT_GROUP_ID override

2021-01-05 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- eclass/acct-group.eclass | 39 +-- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/acct-group.eclass b/eclass/acct-group.eclass index 1d5d14290dad..1ccc40218434 100644 --- a/eclass/acct-group.eclass +++ b/e

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] acct-user.eclass: Support ACCT_USER_ID override

2021-01-05 Thread Michał Górny
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- eclass/acct-user.eclass | 31 --- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/eclass/acct-user.eclass b/eclass/acct-user.eclass index 5c55b8092c69..ca5a0b2e6b23 100644 --- a/eclass/acct-user.eclass +++ b/eclass/acct-u

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-crypt/acme-client

2021-01-05 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2021-01-05) # The portable version has been discontinued upstream (i.e. it is now # available only as tightly coupled part of OpenBSD).  The current # version relies on dev-libs/libressl implementation details, and can # not be easily ported to dev-libs/openssl.  Reported to fail t

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Jaco Kroon
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [News review] LibreSSL support discontinued

2021-01-05 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 2021-01-03 at 21:47 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Please review the news item inlined below. This is based on what > I discussed with blueness (LibreSSL team lead). The news item is kinda > long-ish because I wanted to include the full rationale since I believe > our users will

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: dropping support for uclibc-ng

2021-01-05 Thread Thomas Mueller
> 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 whi