Re: [dev] Xorg implementations

From: Cág <>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:18:21 +0100

>>> I did check alpine package web browsers: it's full of libgcc_s deps.
>>> You can forget alpine as a no libgcc_s distro. At least, they do maintain the
>>> patches required in order to compile many software packages with the musl
>>> libc.
>> Patching the shit out of everything...
>> I don't like this. It seems like a hassle and it only treats symptoms
>> while the cause is still poisoning the forest.
>> I'd rather live in shit-world until a proper solution exist.
> Patching software to work with musl libc (and sending patches
> upstream) improves overall software.
> Not that much is needed. Most programs work out of the box with musl.
> There was a talk about this a few months ago.

I watched the video, like, the day before, and was surprised at how
many people tried Alpine. It reminds me of one insight about NetBSD PR
I read once (in short, nobody knows how good NetBSD is to use it in
production, why devs should use "at netbsd dot org" email addresses,
and how saying "this is a bug in NetBSD" may sound "marginal and


Apart from patching programmes to work with musl, Alpine has around
sixty patches for musl itself[0].


musl *is* a proper solution, especially for embedded systems and systems
where size matters (like Alpine).


Received on Sun Jul 09 2017 - 18:18:21 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Jul 09 2017 - 18:24:25 CEST