musl: 1.1.21 -> 1.1.22

[dtzWill]

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2019/04/10/1

Motivation for this change

cc @nh2 and folks following previous musl+nixpkgs updates:

• [RFC 0023] Support musl libc rfcs#23

• musl: 1.1.20 -> 1.1.21 #54440 1.1.21

• musl: 1.1.19 -> 1.1.20 #46064 1.1.20

• musl: 1.1.18 -> 1.1.19 #35360 1.1.19

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

[matthewbauer]

I'm getting this error from the update:

/nix/store/rw0x0lq40ai06v9sqnm4z59qm140ayac-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl-binutils-2.31.1/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-musl-ld:INSTALL: file format not recognized; treating as linker script
/nix/store/rw0x0lq40ai06v9sqnm4z59qm140ayac-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl-binutils-2.31.1/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-musl-ld:INSTALL:2: syntax error
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

This is from:

$ nix build -f '<nixpkgs>' pkgsStatic.busybox

[dtzWill]

This seems awfully similar to: #52074 which was before this last update? Does reverting to 1.1.21 fix this for you, just to be sure/clear?

[dtzWill]

If you just want something for nix, consider using pkgsMusl.busybox-sandbox-shell which is statically linked and doesn't use the hacks that cause this (which hopefully we can remove regardless :)).