221–224 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to point to the documentation? AFAIK there are 0 open source server ("store") implementations compatible with recent versions of snapd.
I wrote it up here. https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/10/snap_without_ubuntu_t... There are multiple links to Canonical docs, and I don't think it's worth trying to summarise it further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to point to the documentation? AFAIK there are 0 open source server ("store") implementations compatible with recent versions of snapd.
I wrote it up here. https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/10/snap_without_ubuntu_t... There are multiple links to Canonical docs, and I don't think it's worth trying to summarise it further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are replying to someone who did, so there's your example. There's a bunch of other people in this thread as well – you really don't need to look very far. "Standard" is one of those words that can mean different things. Insisting on one absolute definition and calling anyone who uses another definition "disingenuous" is not hugely constructive.
> Insisting on one absolute definition and calling anyone who uses another definition "disingenuous" is not hugely constructive. Nobody said anything about an absolute definition. When describing the C standard library , the only reasonable interpretation of "nonstandard" is that it does not adhere to standard C. There are no counter-examples anyone has been able to provide from any corpus.
No, that is your interpretation, and one that, so far as I can tell from all of the responses in this thread, you are alone in believing.
> There are no counter-examples anyone has been able to provide from any corpus.
* https://elinux.org/images/1/15/Anatomy_of_Cross-Compilation_... 2016, see page 14 "de facto standard of Linux C libraries"
* https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3417 (June 1999) -- "Linux has now standardized on the GNU C library (glibc) as the common implementation for future Linux systems."
* https://www.reddit.com/r/C_Programming/comments/9g6531/where... "For the standard library, uCLibC and muSL are the two lightweight (and thus likely easier to understand) libraries. GLibC ("libc") is more or less the de-facto standard C library for all non-windows (and even some windows) development."
* https://man.archlinux.org/man/glibc.7 -- "For a while, Linux libc was the standard C library in many Linux distributions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
musl is just a mandatory choice; the toolchain configuration doesn't really allow running anything else (glibc doesn't go together with clang+compiler-rt, they only very recently made it build with clang and that's still assuming a gcc-centric runtime as glibc actually dlopens libgcc_s, and every other libc is going to be much worse in terms of support) i think you overstate how much trouble it is to port software to…
thank you for your work on chimera! > musl is just a mandatory choice [due to the toolchain] interesting; i didn't realise that. > most software does not involve any porting in the first place, upstreams are not that reluctant perhaps; it seems to me that the majority of patches in alpine's aports (otherwise a rather vanilla distribution) are fixing glibc assumptions. > as for firefox having a specific crash, have yo…
you said chimera's builds are affected by this, which means you've presumably tested it there; i see no bug report about it in cports either though