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.li...@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@busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
