Rob Landley wrote: [SNIP] > Currently, it's not clear _which_ branch a development release would come > from, and thus what would be worth testing. The nptl branch? The > inexplicable other development branch which NPTL still hasn't been merged > into > more than 3 years after the OLS presentation on NPTL for uClibc? The merge > of > these two branches has been "in progress" since Erik was maintainer, but I've > never even seen an -rc containing NPTL code. >
Hi Rob, it happens periodically that you post your concerns against the NPTL merge and so on, and it is becoming to be a bit irritating, I'm sorry to say this. Steve, Khem, myself and recently Austin have done a lot of effort in this direction (plus obviously Mike, Bernhard and other guys), but this is not an easy job, and I guess a lot of us are busy with a lot of other jobs in the linux world beside uClibc. For example, we @ST, are working to provide prelink feature into uClibc, that is something I think being really important for embedded system where performance and fast-boot are becoming to be a pressing needs... and this task is consuming time that we cannot spend in the merge... so I don't care about merge currently. But let me say that, even not merged, the NPTL branch for those supported archs, it's a reality, production ready, embedded C library (a lot of really big ST customers in the Set-top-box world are already using uClibc on sh4 using all the work we've done in this year). So, please, if you want to contribute to this project, please take actions and send patches... but do not periodically complain against the work that other guys are not doing, because they don't have enough free time. I'm sure you will understand my point. Regards, Carmelo > > Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
