Musl 1.1.16 Released, Fixes CVE Integer Overflow, s390x Support

[float]

I know that but why isnt musl glibc compatible? They are so strict to standards that they dont implement useful functions that should have been standard in the first place. Also some people like to avoid glibc. So i am jsut wondering.

musl to my knowledge tries hard to keep binary compatibility with glibc, making it unfair to say that it is not glibc compatible.

Moreover their faq states "plus common extensions, intended for use on Linux-based systems", marking your second sentence as incorrect.

So don’t run those GNU applications, stick to ones that work with Linux. That is why we call our platform “Linux” and not “GNU” ...

Linux is not a libc.

[ipsirc]

Just to mention, there is a desktop distribution based on musl: http://releases.freeharbor.net/ . There is also an uclibc based one here.

[ldo17]

Linux is not a libc.

You can’t use it without one.

[float]

You can’t use it without one.

Sure you can. But even if you could not, I can not see how this would be relevant to the discussion.

[cj.wijtmans]

Surely they are both POSIX-compatible, and that is enough.

Just look at the functions systemd uses that are missing in musl. My thought are that some intermediate layer on top of musl could made to make most programs musl compatible by implementing some basic functions that should be standard in the first place. It wont make musl with the layer much bigger at all. And any weird non-standard behavior from there on should be reported upstream.

[cj.wijtmans]

binary compatibility with glibc

Not what i was talking about at all

common extensions

Do they make musl compatible with systemd for example? ( I believe it doesnt)

[timofonic]

One point of dislike for me is that glibc is huge. If you build linux from scratch, nothing takes longer to compile than glibc. Everything else being equal, more code means more bugs.

Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid glibc on a desktop system, since most user programs link against it. It would be a huge amount of work to maintain a desktop distro that used something other than glibc. The weird and obscure bugs would be endless.

There's Alpine Linux, a Linux distribution aimed at embedded systems that uses Musl instead GlibC

[float]

Not what i was talking about at all

You said that musl is not glibc compatible, which includes binary compatibility.

Do they make musl compatible with systemd for example? ( I believe it doesnt)

I do not know, why don't you try it and tell us the results? I think that systemd makes it explicit that they only support linux and glibc.
Also, musl does support many functions added by glibc such as asprintf

[cj.wijtmans]

You said that musl is not glibc compatible, which includes binary compatibility.



I do not know, why don't you try it and tell us the results? I think that systemd makes it explicit that they only support linux and glibc.
Also, musl does support many functions added by glibc such as asprintf

Take a look at the mailing list and see yourself how many functions are missing and should be standard in the first place.

[bison]

There's Alpine Linux, a Linux distribution aimed at embedded systems that uses Musl instead GlibC

Yes, Alpine Linux is one of my favorite distros, due to it's small size and minimalist design. But I think it would be difficult to use as a day-to-day desktop system. There are people doing just that, so it's not impossible.