On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 16:38 +0000, Alex Kiernan wrote: > I think so, I've definitely run into cases where I would have liked to > have this in the past and ended up having multi-config setups which > were way heavier than I really needed. > > Along a similar line (and I appreciate this is likely a whole 'nother > world of pain), I have wanted single binaries which were built > statically w/ musl (for size) but in a largely glibc world so I could > run them as pid 1 (which then exec into something which finally ends > up looking like init). Though having written that I think I am > describing multi-config!
I did wonder if we'd want to use the mechanism to select whether recipes were being built with glibc or musl. That would be possible but whether it would be a good idea I'm less sure. As soon as you need "both", or in other words different configurations of the same thing, you're into class extensions of some kind (multilib) or multiconfig. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2090): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2090 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/110536181/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
