Hi, Rob Landley wrote, > On 01/09/2017 08:26 AM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > > Because uClibc is dead. > > As the guy who staged the coup to appoint the current maintainer a > decade ago and then watched him _not_ get the NPTL mess sorted or the > project back on a regular release schedule, I agree: uClibc is dead. Has > been for a while, replaced by musl-libc (chromeos) and bionic (android). > > I wrote a long eulogy for the project last year on the buildroot list > explaining how it died and why I consider the uClibc-ng project to be > beating a dead horse:
Yeah, but your opinion is just _one_ opinion. Keeping a working code base up and running for a lot of architectures not supported by musl isn't about beating a dead horse.(ARC, Xtensa, NDS32, Sparc, Blackfin, C6X, H8/300, ..) uClibc-ng is alive and kicking. So stop telling people bullshit. > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2016-December/180102.html > > Of course that particular exercise in necromancy is no sillier than a > half-dozen other such projects I could name. Surely reimplementing a well known project like busybox just because to use another open source license is something totally useful and genius stuff. I added aarchh64 support recently to uClibc-ng, so you might give it a try and make your own opinion. best regards Waldemar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@uclibc-ng.org https://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
