Dear Paul Barker, On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0000, Paul Barker wrote: > On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > >> help test it. > > > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > > > Ross > > Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different > license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong > fail-safe guarantees.
I would also add that musl is less configurable than uClibc. This might be seen as a drawback (you have less possibilities of fine-tuning the configuration) but also has a lot of advantages (it's easier for the maintainers to test the code base, it's easier to know what feature set musl provides, while with uClibc, each configuration provides a different feature set, which can be a nightmare for build systems). Another important thing is that the musl community is much more active than the uClibc one. uClibc hasn't seen a stable release since a looong time, and despite several calls on the mailing list since several months to do a release, nothing is happening. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
