On 22 Jul 2014, at 5:27 am, Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Florian Fainelli, > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:55:21 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >>> On my side, I fully support Waldemar's fork. The last uClibc release is >>> more than 2 years old, and Bernhard has never been answering to *any* >>> of the e-mails asking to do a release, sent since September 2013 or so. >>> At this point, I think there is absolutely no hope to see any action >>> being done by the existing uClibc community in terms of doing stable >>> releases, and this case, the lever that open-source licenses provide is >>> simple: fork. That's what Waldemar has done, and it's good. >> >> To speak my mind, I think uClibc has no future in the next 2 or 3 >> years, musl is a much more active project, with multiple embedded >> projects starting to use it, on the other end, (e)glibc has remedied >> its own problems and its useful again. >> >> No MMU architectures are becoming less and less popular, and the cost >> for larger flash storage mediums keeps decreasing, so all these key >> selling features (noMMU support and reduced memory footprint) that >> uClibc has will soon no longer be any useful to it. > > I don't really think noMMU architectures are becoming less and less > popular. There is actually a whole new generation of > Cortex-M3/Cortex-M4 based processors that are capable of running Linux > and that offer really nice power management capabilities. > >> Bottom line is, I believe uClibc is a (relatively speaking) dead >> project already, forking it might be useful to keep the existing user >> base alive, but I expect all of them to transition to something active >> and maintained, whether that's glibc or musl. > > I also agree that probably not that much is going to appear in uClibc, > especially with the currently slow release cycle. However, a C library > is something that needs to be maintained (as the significant number of > uClibc patches that we all carry around indicates), and therefore > having a central upstream that is alive remains useful. > > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com I would like to add my support to Thomas' position. Regardless of what happens with glibc and/or musl, an active community supporting regular releases of uClibc is a good thing. Time has spoken that we can't expect this to happen unless something changes. Regards, Steve -- Embedded Systems Specialists - http://workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: [email protected] F: +61 7 3391 6002 _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
