-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rob Landley schreef: > The official uClibc tree has seen 35 patches since the 0.9.29 release. That > tree hasn't been touched in a month. The uClibc-nptl branch (scheduled to > become 0.9.30) was last touched 5 weeks ago, and before that 4 months ago. > The last time the uClibc maintainer posted to this list was in May. It is > now September. > > The uClibc project is, for all intents and purposes, on hiatus at the moment. > > Meanwhile, Peter S. Mazinger says his uClibc tree has 1194 commits relative > to > 0.9.29. (That's one thousand, one hundred, and ninety-four.) I just had a > longish conversation with him on #gentoo-embedded on freenode, during which > he showed me how to patch uClibc/Rules.mak to get armv4l soft-float working. > > Peter unsubscribed from this list almost exactly one year ago, due to > disagreements with Manuel Nova and Steven Hill: > http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015014.html > > Manuel's objection was that Peter was making too many changes and checking > them into the development branch, which was making it hard for other > developers to keep up: > http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015018.html
So Manuel wants a trunk/trunk and if that gets too much development for his taste a trunk/trunk/trunk? So what does 'development branch' really mean in the uclibc world? > > Steven's objection was that he was getting paid to do large uClibc changes > out-of-tree, none of which would be merged until the end of the contract, and > that changes to the public tree in the meantime made more work for him > keeping his out-of-tree stuff in sync, and therefore Steven wanted Peter to > stop interfering with Steven's contract by doing rapid unrelated development: > http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015048.html > http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015049.html Sounds like someone needs to read up on svk or git-svn... > Peter's last post (asking how to unsubscribe) was August 25, 2006. Steven > and > Manuel got what then wanted. Does it seem to anyone else here that a year > later, the result is that uClibc development has effectively ground to a > halt? So if I understand correctly almost everything interesting in NOT in trunk. So as a distro person I get to pick between a shitload of uclibc 'trees' that might or might not work... Can't we lock someone in a room with meld, kdiff3, git and copies of the main uclibc forks? regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFG2oMsMkyGM64RGpERApV/AJ0StJCAiu9gGI8/41rHu1QqE1Nk4wCfZcZK 64eiH7cYKYJDPlp5JGjxPpw= =tzOr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
