On 7/22/2014 11:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:> 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.
I agree. It is better to have a responsive maintainer releasing periodic
"stable" versions than to have what is essentially no maintainer and
sustained long-term fragmentation of what "uClibc" really is. If the
uClibc maintainer wakes up in the future and begins releasing again, the
new project's changes can always be merged back to the parent, as they
did with eglibc and glibc. For now we need to focus on making a stable
release, something which is grossly overdue and harms all projects
currently using uClibc.
I also agree that musl is an interesting project with a bright future
(and a bright present for that matter), but it does not cover all of
what uClibc covers and the number of projects that already require
uClibc is too large to simply drop uClibc and move to musl.
-Jody Bruchon
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
