Re: [musl] Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-16 Thread Waldemar Brodkorb
Hi, Thomas Petazzoni wrote, > Hello, > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:20 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > These "ng" names are not the best idea. > > > > Maybe uclibc-ng can just supersede uclibc? > > Waldemar proposed many, many times to Bernhard to take over the > project, and Bernhard

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-16 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Hello, On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:20 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > These "ng" names are not the best idea. > > Maybe uclibc-ng can just supersede uclibc? Waldemar proposed many, many times to Bernhard to take over the project, and Bernhard essentially never replied. So it was either adding -ng

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-16 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:59:41 -0500, wdlkmpx wrote: > >> I'm sure there was plenty of people willing to contribute to uclibc, >> there is even an updated fork. >> >> The project has been

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-16 Thread Thomas Petazzoni
Hello, On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:59:41 -0500, wdlkmpx wrote: > I'm sure there was plenty of people willing to contribute to uclibc, > there is even an updated fork. > > The project has been badly managed.. thats the only reason i can think > of for this situation to happen uClibc-ng is alive at

Re: [musl] bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Rich Felker wrote: >> Now, the good news - musl has smaller data! >> 6695 bytes versus 7129 bytes for uclibc: >> >>text data bss dechex filename >> 894902 465 6664 902031 dc38f busybox.uclibc >> 912538 563 6132 919233

Re: [musl] bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread Rich Felker
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:43:39PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced > to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in > getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way, > which uclibc does not expect. While I'm glad musl is working for you,

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread Mattias Schlenker
Am 14.08.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Denys Vlasenko: As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way, which uclibc does not expect. I built a toolchain using

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread Emmanuel Deloget
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > Only a few options did not build: > EXTRA_COMPAT and FEATURE_VI_REGEX_SEARCH > failed because they need GNU regexp extensions. I have a patch somewhere that enable parts of VI_REGEX_SEARCH (it only does forward

Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread wdlkmpx
I'm sure there was plenty of people willing to contribute to uclibc, there is even an updated fork. The project has been badly managed.. thats the only reason i can think of for this situation to happen On 8/14/17, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > As uclibc is increasingly

bbox: musl versus uclibc

2017-08-14 Thread Denys Vlasenko
As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way, which uclibc does not expect. I built a toolchain using https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make (Rich, is this the thing I should