[yocto] [meta-yocto][PATCH] poky-tiny: Use musl for default system C library

[Khem Raj]

> On Jan 17, 2016, at 11:04 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 1:21 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com <mailto:ross.burton at intel.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 January 2016 at 09:09, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com <mailto:ross.burton at intel.com>> wrote:
>> For anyone else reading, I just gave this a test locally, and for context the previous poky-tiny was using a tuned glibc and the rootfs came in at 1.5M.
>> 
>> Finished my comparison builds:
>> 
>> musl:
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 ross ross  731681 Jan  7 23:46 core-image-minimal-qemux86-20160107234351.rootfs.cpio.gz
>> glibc:
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 ross ross 1569610 Jan  8 00:01 core-image-minimal-qemux86-20160107235147.rootfs.cpio.gz
>> uclibc:
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 ross ross  669759 Jan  8 09:14 core-image-minimal-qemux86-20160108090512.rootfs.cpio.gz
>> 
>> So it's a slightly increase over uclibc, but by default poky-tiny uses glibc so this is a massive win.  In the greater scheme of things musl is trending to be worth the increase over uclibc too.
>> 
> 
> Thanks Ross for this info. I think it will be interesting to know the sizes of packages contributing to image from buildhistory if you have it lying around.
> musl has libpthread/libm etc. all bundled into single .so for simplicity reasons. I would like to get to bottom of the slight increase of musl over uclibc based system
> 

musl/core-image-minimal ( 690K )

601 KiB busybox
598 KiB musl
23 KiB netbase
5 KiB update-rc.d
4 KiB update-alternatives-opkg
3 KiB busybox-udhcpc
3 KiB busybox-mdev
3 KiB base-files
2 KiB run-postinsts
2 KiB busybox-syslog

uclibc/core-image-minimal ( 614K)

603     KiB busybox
515     KiB uclibc
73      KiB libm1
23      KiB netbase
5       KiB update-rc.d
4       KiB update-alternatives-opkg
3       KiB busybox-udhcpc
3       KiB busybox-mdev
3       KiB base-files
2       KiB run-postinsts
2       KiB busybox-syslog


I don’t know why musl one is 690K where as the factored  sizes are quite same for both images . May be because it is on different machine.


> 
> 
>> Ross

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20160122/70a10968/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20160122/70a10968/attachment.pgp>