Message-ID: <1452d156-96ec-6306-6175-a430ef61e4aa@schinagl.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 21:09:04 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Reply-To: oliver+list@schinagl.nl
Subject: Re: Native Alpine GLibc support (NEW)
Content-Language: en-US
To: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
References: <CAGFcrM=KPg5AZie-ux055SVAZu08EmSJ3s-Q_Map5j5CmGaaKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220621095653.71773d59@ncopa-desktop.lan>
 <CAGFcrMmniJdjO54SHR+Js=5pyuB70A_M0Ge92=pFpxjbBHYC9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220621114559.4d38d98e@ncopa-desktop.lan>
 <CAGFcrMmddidhEknrSUtydvocghN2pm30pUQ8eGsuqEd9eNpLSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e5703d3f-4953-6797-2a93-324ea72810b9@lamprecht.org>
 <vTcnWREDRbSp_m2UXDa_2LCTqGU6XH8o9aBAPLeCyJv0MqPQF5dQ2GNQ-tVLrqiuRCrVsuJRTTz1F6RuKHry-bCvRHyMW3GSOTgjutxKURI=@panekj.dev>
 <CAGFcrMmYUyfuUzBr32CwHtZf-+n-mHBBXvpArUcuNzVCCNRynQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAGFcrMmYUyfuUzBr32CwHtZf-+n-mHBBXvpArUcuNzVCCNRynQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21-06-2022 15:39, Tomas Kolda wrote:
> út 21. 6. 2022 v 15:05 odesílatel Jakub Panek <me@panekj.dev> napsal:
>>
>> As a person that dabbles with Alpine and is somewhat active in community,
>> I agree that glibc doesn't feel right with Alpine. It's not a component
>> that you can simply replace in ecosystem as everything has to be rebuilt
>> against it. IMO, libc and package manager are base components which make
>> OS distinct so calling it Alpine with glibc would be a disservice as
>> Alpine focuses on size, simplicity and security, which for glibc I
>> would say neither are a focus.
>>
> So the Alpine can be first distro that supports two libc libraries! ;-)
>>
>> I would be happy to contribute towards apk-tools + glibc OS (option b))
>> and it's ports as much as I can but would really recommend for it
>> to define itself as separate project from Alpine (e.g. different name).
>> I could also provide some compute and storage for it.
>>
> As Natanael said it would increase the resource needs (people) even
> more. I think... Changing one library does not need to generate
> another distro. Maybe I should share it somehow so you can try it in
> chroot or docker to see there is really actually almost no change
> which I like most.

That is often the problem anyway, resources, be it $work or foss. The 
sad thing about open source in general (which I know, is also its 
strength), is the duplication of effort. Oh I don't like how you do XYZ, 
lets fork/re-write. Just look at the number of distro's/applications in 
C or C++ flavor, KDE or Gnome flavor. It kind of is sad that we waste so 
much resources here. Sometimes, a new gem is born of course.

On topic, it would have been nice, to add glibc support ot the APKBUILD 
files, keep alpine an musl project, but share the package base with a 
second 'project'.

The previous effort of glibc alpine failed, because it was a one man 
show, lack of resources. Getting something of the ground would be great; 
but then we'd have something that Void tries to do; but struggling even 
more for resources, though sharing the package base, kind of like we can 
use the same package for both x86 and s390x.

It does make me wonder, what is the 'raison d'etre' of void? Why does 
the world need a 'pretty similar distro' and can't we all work together 
on a common/better distro together :) One can dream ...

Olliver

> 
> Maybe Jakube we can setup a repository of packages somewhere on your
> web server? I can copy it there. Then it is easy to start to play with
> that as you have build toolchain ready.