4 ms·

musl has a better track record of standards compliance than glibc. Common method for porting to musl is putting non-standard compliant code into an ifdef glibc.

• kazinator 3y ago
  Counterexample: musl's crypt() does silly things, like treat all unrecognized inputs as DES, even if the salt characters are invalid.
  • q66 3y ago
    at least it actually supports blowfish
• kelnos 3y ago
  This is, of course, the same musl that refused to implement TCP DNS requests until very recently. And they only did so because the DNS standards people got fed up with people not implementing it, and made it a requirement.
  • blueflow 3y ago
    And glibc is the one not implementing strlcpy and strlcat until June 2023.
    • pantalaimon 3y ago
      strscpy is the better API anyway
  • fanf2 3y ago
    It was made a requirement by RFC 7766 in 2016 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7766#page-6 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7766#page-6
    • dralley 3y ago
      That doesn't necessarily contradict "the DNS standards people got fed up with people not implementing it, and made it a requirement."?
      • fanf2 3y ago
        It took musl about 6 years to implement the requirement.
• smsm42 3y ago
  I do not know about standards, but I know the only deployment images I have problems all the time with random weird DNS failures are the musl-based ones. No idea what causes it, but makes me wish to get rid of all musl usage just to have stable deployments.