On Thursday 13 March 2014 01:54 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:07:27AM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Peter Korsgaard >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> <thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/[email protected]> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> writes: >>> > > >>> > > > Dear Khem Raj, >>> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:43:41 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >> > There are a great number of fixes since the last numbered release >>> > > and I for one would greatly appreciate having at least a "testing" >>> > > release with a bumped version number to use. Other than the ldso stat >>> > > call problem I reported a couple of weeks ago, uClibc trunk has been >>> > > working fairly well, and most bugs I run into are the typical growing >>> > > pains of toolchain building from scratch rather than uClibc problems. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> so get going start testing git/master and report issues or >>> > > successes you have. >>> > > >> help in testing it out, run uclibc test suites or any others you >>> > > have setups for >>> > > >>> > > > Please break the chicken-and-egg problem, and release 2014.02-rc1 >>> > > right >>> > > > now, spit out a call for testing, and release 2014.02 at the end of >>> > > the >>> > > > month. (Or pick any other date you want, those are just suggestions). >>> > > >>> > > Inded. When Bernard suggested the same last year I did test and reported >>> > > issues, but never got any reply: >>> > > >>> > > http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2013-November/048093.html >>> > > >> > >> > Any further evolution in this matter? >> > >> > Until now, this mail thread did not seem to have triggered any real >> > activity from the uClibc community. >> > >> > Khem Raj: what is the plan forward? You have requested patches to be >> > sent, and testing to be performed, and the Buildroot community has >> > responded by telling that we only have patches that are already in the >> > uClibc tree (unreleased) and we have been testing this for a long >> > while already, without problems. >> > >> > Maybe you feel this is not enough, in which case kindly provide more >> > details about what you consider blocking points to make a release, or >> > even a release candidate. > Well, see ML archives with a mail from Peter who tested a somewhat > recent master and found ARM !LFS to be broken (i still consider !LFS to > be an important thing to support, despite the maintenance burden). > [the exact november mail above, btw] > We have touched this on master as > 00571b43df2e0554d1b0716681832ba9975177c5 so this in fact did trigger a > reaction from "the uClibc community". No reaction from the buildroot > folks that current master resolved this !LFS ARM failure. Zilch. > See?
I'm not sure if ARM !LFS failure is the same but I've posted (and reminded at least once) regarding a !LFS build failure on ARC. http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-January/048174.html http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-February/048215.html -Vineet _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
