Hi Bernhard, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote, > On February 6, 2015 12:04:30 AM GMT+01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On February 5, 2015 6:57:53 PM GMT+01:00, Andy Voltz > ><[email protected]> wrote: > >>What is the current release process for uClibc? > >> > >>I'm looking to bump our build system to a newer uClibc version, but > >>there > >>are no new release tags since 0.9.33.2. It seems like the 0.9.33 > >branch > >>could be treated as version 0.9.33.3, but there was never a tag, and > > > >We will have a 0.9.33.3 off the 0.9.33 branch. > > > >>now > >>master is 0.9.33.4-git. > >> > >>Is the process to create a branch for the version once it's > >development > >>is > >>complete? I'd rather not use 0.9.33 branch if it is some abandoned / > >>unstable effort, but at the same time the master branch seems active > >>enough > >>to not treat as a stable release. > > > >I consider master pretty stable and intend to have a new stable release > >of a 0.9.34 off master hopefully this month. > > Changing babies nappies let's make this start of march... > > m68k still hitting .sgot binutils asserts though but on the plus side major > arches seem to do well, from cursory testing. > Thanks,
Did you try to use -fPIC to compile the code for m68k? It helped me to get the testsuite compile without binutils asserts. best regards Waldemar _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
