Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:41:37 -0600
From: Ariadne Conill <>
To: Rich Felker <>,
Cc:, ell1e <>
Subject: Re: Would it to be possible to get strtoll_l?


On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 7:44:11 AM MDT ell1e wrote:
> But then again, most of these things can be worked around when porting
> to musl. But how many people will bother, and how many programs be left
> behind as a result and not work on Alpine etc.? Is that some quantity
> that will bother anyone?

Alpine is in an atypical position of both being a distribution and an overall 
platform, which just happens to use musl as one of its components.  We extend 
musl with other libraries that implement functionality considered out of scope 
for musl; the strtoll_l() and related functions could be provided in this way.  
Other examples of such extensions include libucontext, musl-obstack, etc.

I don't think that all situations require musl to provide functionality in 
order to solve the problem -- in fact, in general, I think that the amount of 
situations where that is actually required is minimal.  I would rather musl 
focus on providing a high quality core libc implementation instead of 
implementing things that they don't want to implement and can be provided 

At any rate, the point here being that simply because musl does not implement 
something does not mean it cannot be implemented in Alpine at large -- and 
yes, this means that sometimes programs built on Alpine require the other 
runtime components (like libucontext or musl-obstack or whatever) along side 
musl.  I don't consider that a problem, since those components are readily 
available for any other distribution to ship if they wish to.


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.