> What is the comparison between using musl and traditional glibc?
you get weird bugs and failures that don't happen with glibc (like the incomplete dns resolving routines that would fail under some conditions) but you can brag about saving 30-40 mb of disk space.
this project seems to be compromising on quality overall, in the name of having smaller size.
Even BearSSL, by their own website is beta-quality: "Current version is 0.6. It is now considered beta-quality software" (from https://bearssl.org/).
you get weird bugs and failures that don't happen with glibc (like the incomplete dns resolving routines that would fail under some conditions) but you can brag about saving 30-40 mb of disk space.
this project seems to be compromising on quality overall, in the name of having smaller size.
Even BearSSL, by their own website is beta-quality: "Current version is 0.6. It is now considered beta-quality software" (from https://bearssl.org/).