[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:20:26 +0100
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Revisiting 1.0 wishlist
On 11/20/12 6:09 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> About 18 months ago, shortly after the initial public release of musl,
> I posted a wishlist of what I thought it would take to consider musl
> to have reached "1.0" quality. The other day I was revisiting that,
> and thought I'd post a summary of my thoughts to the list as a
> starting point for further discussion.
>
> Completed goals:
> - coverage for all of C99 and POSIX base and supported option groups
> - character class handling sync'd to current Unicode
> - dynamic loading (except in static-linked apps)
> - C++ support
> In addition, significant progress has been made on the open-ended
> goals of application compatibility and ability to load/run some
> glibc-linked binaries (applications and libraries). Part of the goal
> originally stated in the wishlist was to determine a collection of
> "important" applications and ensure compatibility against them. I
> think now would be a good time to start doing that. Perhaps LFS (Linux
> From Scratch) might make a good base set to start with, especially
> since lots of people building their own systems who might use musl
> will be starting with LFS as a guide. We could add and remove some
> packages from the list as desired.
Some people asked me recently about adding musl to Gentoo properly (as
in `crossdev musl` and musl stage3) I'll review my old ebuild and look
again at the few issues that prevented crossdev to work completely soon,
probably I'll have to ask you questions, surely would be nice if the
result would let us have a Gentoo/musl 1.0 =)
lu
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.
