4 ms·
Not sure why "MUSL-compatible" is the default for the binary install. This is surely in the minority of Linux distros, even in 2024. I imagine it's best (when
by ezekiel68 2y ago
Not sure why "MUSL-compatible" is the default for the binary install. This is surely in the minority of Linux distros, even in 2024. I imagine it's best (when distributing) to target the convenience of the end-user rather than of the dev team (since one could simply create a separate CICD channel that builds with a glibc-based starting image).
Makes me wonder if the 'cargo install' method requires MUSL libc. This is not stated but that also makes it unclear since it comes right after the former variant.
- superamadeus 2y agoMost likely for Docker/container users using Alpine Linux or similar.
- blueflow 2y agoIt does not matter as the libc part is statically linked into the binary. This means that this project runs on any linux kernel that the musl libc supports, regardless of which libc the rest of the system uses. Musl was likely picked because glibc doesn't support proper static linking.