[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89784f4-2192-405c-daa7-9eb3839e4ad0@dereferenced.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:02:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Is systemd in scope for musl?
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, 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.
There is actually ongoing work in glibc to allow compilation with clang,
and linking with lld.
> 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.
You no longer need to assign your copyright to the FSF to have code
included in GCC or glibc since August 1.
> 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?
No, "this API is used by ________" is not sufficient scope for inclusion
of functionality in musl. The functions themselves must be justified on
its own merit, e.g. with an example usecase highlighting why they are
helpful.
Ariadne
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.
