On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 02:42:48PM +0100, Natanael Copa wrote: >>On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I hate to bring up the word "release" on this list, but is there any chance >>> of >>> integrating this patch actually meaning something in the forseeable future? >> >>I wonder the same. > > Sorry, i've been busy buring Onkel Emil and taking over his duties to > prepare $HOME for the winter. >> >>I am about to create the second release of Alpine Linux based off a >>git snapshot of uclibc. Atleast for x86 the git master with NPTL have >>been very stable recently, infact better than any previous release. >> >>What are the big show stoppers for next uclibc release? > > Well, I need to merge in microblaze (pending input, not a show-stopper > but would be nice) but other than that, i'm not aware of any other > blockers for 0.9.32.. are you? > > Let's install a mental countdown.. burry my grandma on 4th (7th death in > my family during the last 12 months -- literally. uncool, ain't it :(
sorry for your losses > ), resurrect microblaze tuesday/wednesday next week (that'd be 9th-10th) > declare an RC1 on 20101111, finish theme-suppoert for open-phd-guiding, > wait a week then release uClibc-0.9.32. Sounds ok to me. We should call it 1.0 may be and drop the third minor number. > > So.. outstanding issues for 0.9.32, code-wise? protected symbol support is one I think we should solve from NPTL POV > _______________________________________________ > uClibc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
