On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:56 PM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:53:27AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:06 AM Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What about marking networkmanager as incompatible with musl instead of > > > maintaining an ever-growing mess? > > > > > > > if the fix is specifically done for musl alone then I would agree, but > > in many cases, the fixes > > have been cleaning up assumptions in kernel UAPI headers on glibc > > provided headers > > which is a good thing, and it does take some time for kernel header > > changes to flow upstream > > but eventually, they do. e.g. see [1] > > This is not a cleanup, this is a workaround for a misfeature of musl. > > The kernel userspace headers are the userspace ABI of the kernel for > usage by all C libraries provided in one place, they are not tied to > any specific C library. > > musl upstream does not even try to use the kernel userspace headers. > > The kernel userspace headers used to be a mess, but after more than 10 > years of cleanup there is no excuse for musl to insist on providing own > definitions of what is already provided by the kernel headers. >
I was citing an example, you might have good feedback maybe bring it up upstream with musl or > > > Networkmanager uses parts of systemd as a library and also has own > > > glibc-only usages. > > > > > > Both systemd and networkmanager are fundamentally Linux-only, > > > and for systemd it is known that upstream has made the design > > > decision to not compromise their software for rare usecases > > > with C libraries other than glibc. > > > > > > AFAIK OE is the only distribution trying to build either of these > > > with musl, other musl-using distributions are using less heavyweight > > > solutions. > > > > We should enable as much as possible we can and not go overboard in > > supporting everything > > except for core packages where it might be ok to put a bit of effort > > and upstream the changes > > network manager is quite useful in base images eg. xfce images etc > >... > > When you are using networkmanager and xfce in your image, > what is the point of using musl instead of glibc? > > Networkmanager alone has twice the size of glibc. > Size is just one of many reasons to use musl not the only one. > There is a benefit of a small C library when your flash space is > single-digit megabytes, but maintaining plenty of not upstreamable > OE-only patches for using networkmanager on musl without a sane > usecase is a waste of effort. I have said it before as well, I will say it again if we can improve an upstream packages portability that itself is a good thing, but we should not go overboard if its too much of work. there are container distros using musl so we have a wide list of packages which work well with musl, and this list is always increasing, so I would refrain from pushing musl to a narrow usecase -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
