You are not logged in.

#1 2020-05-11 16:44:41

Registered: 2018-04-09
Posts: 34

Glibc-less install?

The following is only what i think. I might be wrong, so please don't take everything as a truth.
I want to install archlinux without glibc, and use musl libc instead (also replace systemd with runit).
I know that base is a metapackage and i might as well just install packages manually, which means i also can remove some packages and install other instead.
However, a lot of packages require glibc as a dependency. Since musl and glibc both provide libc, i guess everything should work, but they won't even install if glibc isn't installed.
Can i tell pacman that they both provide the same thing?


#2 2020-05-11 16:46:20

Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 7,620

Re: Glibc-less install?

You'd need to rebuild basically the entire system. This is one of those questions where if you have to ask, don't bother.


#3 2020-05-11 16:55:26

Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 23,479

Re: Glibc-less install?

Replacing systemd in arch is a bit of work, but certainly doable.  Replacing glibc really isn't.  You would not only have to rebuild every single package, but you'd have to rebuild for every update in which case you'd no longer be using arch repos at all.

You'd also need to patch a lot of software as some packages in our repos use glibc-specific extensions (musl is not a drop in replacement).  You'd need to rebuild or replace pacman - but given that you are not using the repos anyways, that'd be beside the point: you'd not use pacman.

So if you install arch, get rid of systemd and pacman, build everything from source, and don't use anything from the repos ... in what way would you be still using arch?  (hypothetical ... you wouldn't be).

If you want to build everything from source with the options you prefer, use gentoo.  If you want a musl based rolling release, consider void or alpine.  Void uses runit by default, but building your own packages is much more freebsd-like than linux or arch-like and I was rather frustrated with that.  Alpine has APKBUILDs much like PKGBUILDs and package management that would be a very easy transition from arch's system, but the default init is busybox/openrc, though runit is available as an option.  (edit: void also gets points though if you have a uefi system, alpine can work on uefi systems in theory, but the documentation is a couple paragraphs in broken English that say little more than "this may or may not work").

Last edited by Trilby (2020-05-11 16:59:35)

"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman


#4 2020-05-12 04:27:29

Trusted User/Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 3,321

Re: Glibc-less install?

I suppose in theory there's no reason one couldn't create their own distro which also uses the pacman package manager, but targets musl libc. pacman is definitely one of the software projects which works correctly on musl, as can be demonstrated by my pacman-static binaries which use musl.

I'd have to agree that if you want to rebuild the entire system from scratch with a different libc, gentoo would be a much better fit (or voidlinux or alpine for precompiled packages).

Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB