[Slackbuilds-users] Is anybody doing musl?

John Vogel jvogel4 at stny.rr.com
Sun Jul 20 16:27:24 UTC 2014

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:41:03 +0530
Weldon Goree <weldon at langurwallah.org> wrote:

> Update: I switched to the 1.1:
> http://langurwallah.org/slackbuilds/musl.tar.bz2
> On 07/20/2014 06:23 AM, John Vogel wrote:
> > I have been following the 1.1.x branch, so I'm a bit biased on this point.
> Yeah, and upstream confirmed security backports for 1.0 will go away
> within the year, so 1.1 it is.
> > I agree that having the loader symlink placed in /lib$LIBDIRSUFFIX and
> > pointing into a possible mount point is not a good plan. I also think that
> > running system shared binaries that are not based on the base system's
> > main c library a too fine line to walk for my taste. I walk on enough thin
> > ice often enough to know better than to jump up and down on the cracks.
> Well, frankly that's the larger argument against dynamic linking as a
> whole... at any rate, the updated slackbuild puts all the libraries in
> /usr/$LIBDIR/musl, except for the loader, which is in /usr/$LIBDIR.
> There's no collision problems with the loader, because it's called
> ld-musl-$ARCH.
> > Have you tried using musl-cross (https://bitbucket.org/GregorR/musl-cross)?
> > That might be another approach and might be a safer installation.
> Yeah, his patches were the starting point for my toolchain. Good stuff.
> Weldon

Ok, sounds like we are on the same page. I will give your updated slackbuild
some testing this evening.


More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list