Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 23:44:32 +0200
From: Tim Tassonis <>
Subject: Re: Is systemd in scope for musl?

On 8/20/21 20:55, Olivier Galibert wrote:
>    Hi,
> I'm trying to build a kinda-distribution of linux on arm64 where all the 
> userspace is done with clang and which uses systemd[1].  I can either 
> use glibc or musl.  Glibc aggressively does not want to be compiled by 
> anything else than gcc.  Musl is missing a bunch of stuff systemd wants.
> I have two possibilities, either make glibc work but not contribute the 
> changes (because I don't want to give my copyright to the fsf[2]) or 
> extend musl until it has all the missing APIs and contribute them.  I'd 
> rather do the latter.
> Some APIs (qsort_r) are clearly going to be added in the future.  Others 
> are very glibc, e.g. printf configurability stuff, and do not come from 
> any standard.  So, is "this API is used by systemd" a good enough reason 
> to accept it as in-scope for musl[3] or will there be things that are 
> "never" going to be accepted?

Without wanting to bitch about SystemD, their maintainer has repeatedly 
proven to not give one fuck about any standards or portability, he 
actually deliberately enforced non-portability to other libraries than 
glibc and kernels than Linux.

So, I doubt very much this is the way to go. Chasing a deliberately 
moving target is no fun.


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.