From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vineet Gupta Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:15:19 +0530 Subject: [Buildroot] Switching from uClibc to glibc as the default in Buildroot? In-Reply-To: <20140312202417.GC6240@nbbrfq.cc.univie.ac.at> References: <20140218231447.524a1a20@skate> <66DCE5C2-E7A6-4634-8C79-441DA9FC46FB@gmail.com> <20140219092112.6f359a55@skate> <87y5171p19.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20140312202417.GC6240@nbbrfq.cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <53218C3F.8090204@synopsys.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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 wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni 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