I think the deal breaker for some people using uclibc over musl is being able to choose to include individual components to make it even smaller. Another possibility why is musl doesn't straight drop in replace all of glibc's non posix quirks that legacy software depends on could make for some trouble.
On Tue, May 3, 2016, 10:25 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 02/05/16 05:27 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > Let me know offline if/when you need a beta tester. I have QEMU and > > an ancient 32-bit-only Atom netbook that could really use a smaller > > libc. > > > > Is musl a good choice perhaps? iirc it's support right now is better > than uclibc... > >
