Compatibility with musl?

[nubesurrealista]

I have questions, can our app run on a system without glibc? for example, I'm now using Alpine Linux, so, how feasible is for Fluentflame to be compatible with a musl system?

Is it just build it on a musl system or it's more complicated?. A solution to musl users on Alpine, Chimera or Void musl would be simply a Flatpak, in the future. In case a native version would be too much work or impossible

Please note that's not really a request or anything, it's more of a question to know if it's worth it for me to try to do build or if it's not worth trying because it won't work.

[CrystalSplitter]

Electron (and Chromium) ships with many of its own libc implementations to ensure it runs consistently on many platforms. musl is a bit stripped down, but I expect it will mostly already work fine.

I do not expect that it's worth doing unless we prove that it already does not work with a non-glibc system. Whether that be musl, bionic, or llvm-libc.

I would recommend a flatpak distribution option regardless just because flatpak is a common way users may want to install the application. We should have an issue to apply for flatpak distribution (we need to request it and sign up).

[nubesurrealista]

I have an experimental flatpak build of fluentflame running on Alpine, so far it looks relatively good. It's based on the Fluent Reader manifest, however it's a simple proof of concept that I can't contribute, very ugly. It's not a very clean approach: it builds the debian package and packages it in a flatpak, but well, for my personal use I guess it's ok. Not being able to run your own app would be a problem xD

[nubesurrealista]

To whom it may concern: musl compatibility is possible, if someone uses musl and wants to help test we can explain the steps to achieve it. For now I don't think we should distribute a musl binary because it would be a complex process probably, but, perhaps I can make a PR to add to the documentation the steps to make a functional build on Alpine Linux