bbox: musl versus uclibc

[wdlkmpx]

I'm sure there was plenty of people willing to contribute  to uclibc,
there is even an updated fork.

The project has been badly managed.. thats the only reason i can think
of for this situation  to happen

On 8/14/17, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail.com> wrote:
> As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced
> to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in
> getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way,
> which uclibc does not expect.
>
> I built a toolchain using
>     https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make
> (Rich, is this the thing I should be using?)
> and it worked with no issues at all.
>
> (I can probably only wish for the README
> to also mention how to make this a _static_
> toolchain... I have a box with 32-bit userspace,
> would be awesome to be able to copy this fresh
> 64-bit toolchain to it and have it working).
>
> Then I built busybox. Impressions:
>
> Only a few options did not build:
> EXTRA_COMPAT and FEATURE_VI_REGEX_SEARCH
> failed because they need GNU regexp extensions.
> FEATURE_MOUNT_NFS and FEATURE_INETD_RPC do not build
> because they need rpc/rpc.h.
> Not complaining, since them being in libc was a mistake
> in the first place.
>
> Now, the good news - musl has smaller data!
> 6695 bytes versus 7129 bytes for uclibc:
>
>    text  data   bss     dec    hex filename
>  894902   465  6664  902031  dc38f busybox.uclibc
>  912538   563  6132  919233  e06c1 busybox.musl
>
> Whee!
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>