[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] State of libcs in OE-Core glibc/uclibc/musl
From:       martin.jansa () gmail ! com (Martin Jansa)
Date:       2015-10-30 21:03:31
Message-ID: 20151030210331.GE2566 () jama
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:55:42PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Roman Khimov <roman at khimov.ru> wrote:
> > ? ?????? ?? 29 ??????? 2015 08:42:31 ???????????? Khem Raj ???????:
> > > 1. Drop kconfig support in glibc and we become inline with upstream
> > 
> > No opinion on this.

I agree, it can be outside oe-core and enabled + maintained by those who
care about it, it doesn't need to burden you Khem when you're doing all
glibc upgrades in oe-core.

> > > 2. Move musl support to OE-Core from meta-musl
> > 
> > I would certainly support this kind of for musl.

I agree, it looks like more reasonable replacement for uclibc.

> > > 3. Drop uclibc or leave it in current broken state, I would like to pull it
> > > out into a layer in meta-openembedded and we can leave the core plumbing as
> > > it is in OE-Core
> > 
> > But I don't think that moving uClibc out of OE Core is OK with the next
> > release. We do use it and there are probably some users too, I think it's
> > better to have a longer transition period for this kind of change, like make
> > the next release support three libcs and only move uClibc to meta-oe in a
> > subsequent release. This would give everyone some time to evaluate
> > alternatives rather than forcing to make choices right at the OE Core update
> > when usually there are lots of other things that need to be fixed.
> 
> may be not a bad idea however, this still will be available as an
> independent layer on meta-openembedded
> but we could still keep it for a release

I agree again, few people are using it (based on recent survey from
Cliff), so having it in separate layer looks good to me.

> > 
> > > 4. Poky-tiny switches to use musl
> > 
> > No opinion on this.

I won't ever use poky-tiny, but switching it from glibc+kconfig to musl
would probably make it easier to do some build testing on Yocto AB, so
in the end it should improve test-coverage than current uclibc in
oe-core has.

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20151030/a287a0a6/attachment.sig>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]