From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBA3E00B68 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ks9so2674905vcb.41 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OUHw56LLjRW7Z/8iCpwbSiS6US4OnEVCVLP2gPKA7YY=; b=yR5s+Ax3fAMHh1dYF9Ir8hY5nxmRsaRGfcy7P2XgmTqjzVlYwF+8B+1jCCnYBmDKCX EPc2DtBVGGzM0SW2ZGIwHpoAwzWduzTw4+oEXh4XxUc/ml1AzAgpNjf4wkIOTGWf2fIL aQoLcvu/lc8W4DxeoxKZBmCKSIGVaC4Ux/F1qY9fJNe6R7rxrLzsvlmX0B/ztTiVOOEB rJWL7lFs2Pp+OlOIVfiFuE2+aeVvLl1VbwOb5hIZ6/2GW1n/wtDkM6P9NijHLYbjbdg7 VrnHk7YuENmegrWc3ajUdKk+9PjWD82IWJODiMjDGZqwAekMkARW81n3eoS8X2oZ5H0n gI9A== X-Received: by 10.58.252.8 with SMTP id zo8mr474842vec.55.1395412676374; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: paul.betafive@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.239.135 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Paul Barker Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oTTkBivbKNAb9oxrEuga-_zVSnw Message-ID: To: "Burton, Ross" Cc: Yocto discussion list , openembedded-core Subject: Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker wrote: >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > Ross Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong fail-safe guarantees. I am taking that at face value as I haven't really done my own comparison of glibc/uclibc/musl. I've been following the news of musl development for a while though and I like the direction they're heading in. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B736F9F2 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id oz11so2635048veb.34 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OUHw56LLjRW7Z/8iCpwbSiS6US4OnEVCVLP2gPKA7YY=; b=yR5s+Ax3fAMHh1dYF9Ir8hY5nxmRsaRGfcy7P2XgmTqjzVlYwF+8B+1jCCnYBmDKCX EPc2DtBVGGzM0SW2ZGIwHpoAwzWduzTw4+oEXh4XxUc/ml1AzAgpNjf4wkIOTGWf2fIL aQoLcvu/lc8W4DxeoxKZBmCKSIGVaC4Ux/F1qY9fJNe6R7rxrLzsvlmX0B/ztTiVOOEB rJWL7lFs2Pp+OlOIVfiFuE2+aeVvLl1VbwOb5hIZ6/2GW1n/wtDkM6P9NijHLYbjbdg7 VrnHk7YuENmegrWc3ajUdKk+9PjWD82IWJODiMjDGZqwAekMkARW81n3eoS8X2oZ5H0n gI9A== X-Received: by 10.58.252.8 with SMTP id zo8mr474842vec.55.1395412676374; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: paul.betafive@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.239.135 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Paul Barker Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oTTkBivbKNAb9oxrEuga-_zVSnw Message-ID: To: "Burton, Ross" Cc: Yocto discussion list , openembedded-core Subject: Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker wrote: >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > Ross Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong fail-safe guarantees. I am taking that at face value as I haven't really done my own comparison of glibc/uclibc/musl. I've been following the news of musl development for a while though and I like the direction they're heading in. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk