On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:18:52AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: >On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ><[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >>>On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote: >>>> So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either >>>> 1.0 >>>> or 1.0-pre. It is more or less feature complete, isn't it? >>> >>>yeah I have mentioned it on IRC couple of times to have next release be 1.0 >> >> the nptl addition would warrant bumping the version to 0.10.0, yes. >> I don't think messing around with the major version and thus >> UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER is justified for mere cosmetic numbers. > >Its easy to keep the dynamic linker even if you bump major version:
ah, right. I thought you were talking about the library file-name. Bumping the so version is a different thing, we will do that, sure. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
