On 06/11/14 02:35, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Jody Bruchon, > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:43:34 -0400, Jody Bruchon wrote: > >> I'm waiting for musl to be sufficiently stable at this point;
It seems reasonably stable to me. I keep meaning to port my aboriginal linux project over to it but toybox is eating all my non-work development time. (I test toybox using the musl wrapper, which sadly means I'm only testing the x86-64 musl variant. Test of the testing is still against glibc and the old patched-up uClibc in aboriginal.) > musl is indeed a very interesting project, and we've added support for > it in Buildroot in our last release. The musl developers are very > reactive and helpful when we're facing issues. > > However, one thing that musl doesn't handle currently is the support > for noMMU architectures. This remains an area where uClibc is essential. > >> it's hard to keep a libc patched on my own. Perhaps a fork of the >> project is in order? > > It looks to me that a fork is now the only solution. However, this > requires someone having a good knowledge of the uClibc internals and > the time to maintain a new project, which is not that easy to find. Adding nommu support to musl would be easier than maintaining a uClibc fork. The big blocker is lack of a nommu test environments: those of us who don't do it yet tend not to have one set up. Is there an existing nommu test image that runs under qemu? (Possibly one of http://wiki.qemu.org/Testing#QEMU_disk_images perhaps?) Adding a musl chroot under a working system is a lot easier than getting an initial "kernel, emulator, and some libc agree enough to boot to a shell prompt" setup working for a new layout. Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
