Hi Thomas, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote, > Hi Waldemar, > > Waldemar Brodkorb <[email protected]> schreef: > >Hello Embedded Linux Hackers, > > > Interesting development! One question: how do you see musl vs > uclibc-ng in the future? At this moment uclibc supports more > architectures, but this may change. Do you think both should/can > coexist? What are the distinctive features of uclibc over musl, > according to you?
I think both can coexist for a while. uClibc is more compatible to glibc, so most of the software packages used on embedded systems are working fine without patching. Musl is relatively new and there are patches required to make some stuff work. Alpine Linux, Sabotage and OpenADK have a lot of patches, fixing musl issues. uClibc has support for non-MMU systems. uClibc can be configured at build time and can be made smaller than musl. Musl can be used to have a complete static linked system, uClibc still requires libgcc_so.so for some threading functions. uClibc is widely used in the embedded Linux world, musl is a newcomer. For musl you need to patch gcc. 4.9.x does not include support for it. It is just good to have a choice. At the time all software packages working fine with musl and support for it is added to gcc and all architectures and MMU-less systems are supported, uClibc might be obsolete. best regards Waldemar _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
