[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509ff9aa-5d76-397e-20db-ed2b10dfad5c@decentral.ch>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 23:44:32 +0200
From: Tim Tassonis <stuff@...entral.ch>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Is systemd in scope for musl?
On 8/20/21 20:55, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build a kinda-distribution of linux on arm64 where all the
> userspace is done with clang and which uses systemd[1]. I can either
> use glibc or musl. Glibc aggressively does not want to be compiled by
> anything else than gcc. Musl is missing a bunch of stuff systemd wants.
>
> I have two possibilities, either make glibc work but not contribute the
> changes (because I don't want to give my copyright to the fsf[2]) or
> extend musl until it has all the missing APIs and contribute them. I'd
> rather do the latter.
>
> Some APIs (qsort_r) are clearly going to be added in the future. Others
> are very glibc, e.g. printf configurability stuff, and do not come from
> any standard. So, is "this API is used by systemd" a good enough reason
> to accept it as in-scope for musl[3] or will there be things that are
> "never" going to be accepted?
Without wanting to bitch about SystemD, their maintainer has repeatedly
proven to not give one fuck about any standards or portability, he
actually deliberately enforced non-portability to other libraries than
glibc and kernels than Linux.
So, I doubt very much this is the way to go. Chasing a deliberately
moving target is no fun.
Bye
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
