Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:44:14 -0200 From: Gabriel Jacobo <gabomdq@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: dlopen'ing glibc linked libraries > > that's not quite true, sabotage linux builds mesa fine (with 2 minor > patches). > recipe: > https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/pkg/mesalib#L19 > patches: > https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/ > KEEP/mesalib-fpclassify.patch > https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/ > KEEP/mesalib-strtod.patch > https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/master/ > KEEP/mesalib-strtof.patch > > nothing actually works with the SDL/musl binary. >> > > basically what you should try to do is build all dependencies against musl. > > So, will it ever work? >> > > even if it would work, mixing glibc and musl linked things is far from > optimal. > > >> Thanks for the response. Let me express again that my experiment assumes there's binaries that you just can't rebuild against musl (nVidia binaries for example) or that's not practical to do so (like every binary provided by Ubuntu ;) ), and that's the fringe case that interests me the most right now. I would assume that if you rebuild all libraries against musl (or use SDL in a distro that's based on musl such as Sabotage), things would just work. But my question was oriented towards what's the goal for providing "full" binary compatibility with glibc. -- Gabriel. Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.