I use Chimera Linux which is musl based. Compatibility is great. If you have the source, you are probably fine.
It can be a pain for projects that ship binaries as part of the build. Two examples that I have run into:
The Ladybird browser uses vpkg and the version their scripts download assumes Glibc. You can build vpkg itself on musl but the whole process is a pain.
dotnet requires a binary build of dotnet to bootstrap from. There are musl builds available but they assume GCC and Chimera uses Clang. Not really a musl problem now that I think of it.
Anyway, I use a Distrobox of Arch on Chimera. If I do run into something (like the two above), I just pop into that and problem solved.
Flatpak is essentially the same solution as they run in a container and the freedesktop base is Glibc based.
Not only is musl not generally a problem but, these days, it is trivial to work around it.
For musl, I’ve been actively using it for 7 months now and just encounter minor issue. Some packages need to be patched for musl compatibility (I borrow the patches from alpine linux).
I’m curious, how well has Musl been for software compatibility? How did you resolve any that came up?
I use Chimera Linux which is musl based. Compatibility is great. If you have the source, you are probably fine.
It can be a pain for projects that ship binaries as part of the build. Two examples that I have run into:
Anyway, I use a Distrobox of Arch on Chimera. If I do run into something (like the two above), I just pop into that and problem solved.
Flatpak is essentially the same solution as they run in a container and the freedesktop base is Glibc based.
Not only is musl not generally a problem but, these days, it is trivial to work around it.
For musl, I’ve been actively using it for 7 months now and just encounter minor issue. Some packages need to be patched for musl compatibility (I borrow the patches from alpine linux).