[steveklabnik]

Well, if you had a "built-with-musl" rustup, then you could just use it. But if not, you can curl the s3 bucket and grab them; rustup is ultimately a convenience, not a requirement. I guess that's why I see it as "mostly about rustc", since once you have that, you can compile rustup, and once you can do that, you can get it easily.

Just to be clear: I would like to see better support for all of this, personally. I'm not trying to argue that things are perfect today, just figure out exactly where in the process of getting there all this is, since I use Debian, not Alpine.

[throwaway161220]

I feel like we're talking past each other :). Building rustup with and for musl isn't the problem. Needing glibc for the binaries downloaded by rustup is. So this is more about toolchain and target binaries for linux being libc-agnostic which is easiest to achieve by musl-static-linking them which requires upstream support. As a first step a second set of musl-dynlink, parallel to glibc-dynlink, binaries would suffice.

Speaking of Debian, one has to be careful in how stuff is built for the result to run on Debian, Fedora, Arch, Suse, which is another reason to simplify things with musl since it already bundles third party C code anyway. So far rustup doesn't suffer from that, but if it ever were to dynlink ncurses or another core Linux lib, it would have the same issue as GHC's bindists. It doesn't and that's great!

[steveklabnik]

I think so too. It happens. :)

[throwaway161220]

Hehe. Was I able to express the thoughts clearly enough that you're able to follow (now)?

[steveklabnik]

I believe so. :)