From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 08:35:51 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/3] uclibc: add patch fixing non-threaded build on Xtensa for uClibc-ng 1.0.0 In-Reply-To: <20150307175651.GJ3937@waldemar-brodkorb.de> References: <1425735600-16762-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1425735600-16762-4-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20150307144013.GE4186@free.fr> <20150307154325.GH3937@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20150307173048.4652ee0c@free-electrons.com> <20150307175651.GJ3937@waldemar-brodkorb.de> Message-ID: <20150308083551.4e3409fa@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Waldemar Brodkorb, On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:56:51 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > No, I'm still not convinced we need separate packages at this point. > > Maybe in the future if uClibc and uClibc-ng diverge significantly, but > > it's not the case right now. > > To clear things up, I am happy with the version stuff and we don't > need an extra package. I just thought whenever we get the situation > that uClibc 1.0.0 is released _and_ uClibc-ng is still using 1.0.x > ;) Ah, yes indeed. If/when this situation arises, having separate packages would be a solution. Again, I guess it's too early to really draw a plan about what will happen between uClibc and uClibc-ng. It really all depends on how both projects will be maintained: if you continue to be active on uClibc-ng or not, if the original uClibc project moves again or not, etc. So let's not make too much plans, and see what happens :-) However, one plan I'd like to make is to make uClibc-ng the default uClibc version. Maybe for 2015.05, if not for 2015.08. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com