On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Paul Barker <p...@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > On 26 March 2014 22:12, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: >> On 26 March 2014 22:04, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There were interest in other threads in having musl as an alternative >>> to eglibc/uclibc that we already have in OE, in that direction I have >>> poured in my on and off work and put it into a contrib tree >> >> Blimey Khem that was quick. :) >> > > Agreed! > > I wonder if it's worth splitting this out into its own layer though
I thought about it and since class/conf changes that need to go in into OE-core first I kept it as it is (lazyness too). I think once the core support is available in OE-core we can spin the recipes into a layer of its own. > (with fixes done via bbappends) so that it's easy for multiple people > to contribute to. It would also mean it doesn't need rebasing onto > master all the time. > > I'd definitely like to get involved with this. In particular I can > ensure opkg (both current release and development branch) work with > musl and see if some of my preferred software from meta-oe will build > (vim, htop, etc). start with what we have. Once master opens up I would propose the needed changes to OE-core and spin a layer > > Many thanks, > > -- > Paul Barker > > Email: p...@paulbarker.me.uk > http://www.paulbarker.me.uk > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > openembedded-c...@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto