[Arnavion]

>The last straw for me was when I discovered packages in their package repo (some of which were well-known names) that were compiled against musl when the upstream developers quite clearly wrote in their docs that "if you compile X against anything other than libc, you're on your own".

(I assume you meant "glibc", not "libc".)

That's how every software works. The software developer cares about A, B, C distros at most, so other distros are on their own. The maintainer of distro D takes responsibility themselves to make the package work on D. The maintainer needs to understand the software well enough to be able to assert that it will work on their distro, patch it as necessary to make that happen, and maintain those patches in the light of bug reports from the distro users.

>(And yes I raised some of these as bug reports, but the cases got closed and nothing done about it).

Well, yeah. Unless you find something that is irrecoverably broken against musl such that it can only be fixed by compiling against glibc, your bug report is pointless.

[traceroute66]

> (I assume you meant "glibc", not "libc".)

Yes, corrected.

> The maintainer of distro D takes responsibility themselves to make the package work on D.

Yeah, but Alpine are not doing that, or at least not at the time I evaluated. I got tired of finding distro supplied packages that just didn't work as expected because things broke unexpectedly because of musl.

[zbuf]

I think its important to recognise that these are community projects -- they don't owe you anything so don't misunderstand this "responsibility" you're citing.

If something is an issue that's important to you, these things get solved when people like yourself make it known constructively with test cases or bug reports.