Why have any glibc? GCC et al. work fine compiled against musl (as proven by ex. Alpine only doing musl). Or is it for running on GNU/Linux systems (can't you statically link the build chain?)?
In any event, that makes no sense. Pretend for a moment that glibc has working DNS and musl doesn't have working DNS (not true, but let's pretend). You don't build your compiler chain with working DNS support and then use it to build programs without working DNS.
> glibc-linked binaries with musl libraries
Why have any glibc? GCC et al. work fine compiled against musl (as proven by ex. Alpine only doing musl). Or is it for running on GNU/Linux systems (can't you statically link the build chain?)?
> Why have any glibc?
Maybe they want dns resolution to work properly
Are you talking about the TCP fallback that musl has also had for 2 years? https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2023/05/02/1
In any event, that makes no sense. Pretend for a moment that glibc has working DNS and musl doesn't have working DNS (not true, but let's pretend). You don't build your compiler chain with working DNS support and then use it to build programs without working DNS.
Does a compiler need to resolve DNS?
What's different from https://toolchains.bootlin.com/ ?
Or using Zig?
> including musl dynamic loader
Does this mean useful interfaces like PAM and nsswitch work on musl now?
PAM has worked on musl for many years. musl-nscd has provided nsswitch functionality for about a decade now.