PengZheng commented on PR #449: URL: https://github.com/apache/celix/pull/449#issuecomment-1334710661
> Is it an idea/possible to also add a GitHub action to build celix using uclibc (i.e. using buildroot) and maybe even run some tests in a uclibc busybox image? Note maybe this is for a separate PR, but for now the risk is that we unintentionally introduce issues for uclibc if it is not tested in a CI pipeline. It's a very good idea! We have already been hurt by this kind of bugs, e.g. #404 and #426. Conan could be very handy for cross tool-chains management and cross-compiling, and Qemu might be helpful for local debugging. How about we open an issue to have a good discussion of the work flow, especially of the local one. After finishing #441, I will be happy to help adding such support to our CI if it has not happened then. > And it there any benefits looking to musl libc and/or dietlibc? Supporting multiple libc will help improve Celix's portability. I think musl libc is a good choice. As for dietlibc, I have no knowledge of it. If supporting tiny Linux is one of Celix's aims, then supporting dietlibc will be no harm. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@celix.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
