On 2015-03-05 03:19, Jeff Waugh wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Dirk Neukirchen <dirkneukirc...@web.de > <mailto:dirkneukirc...@web.de>> wrote: > > adding uclibc snapshots maybe other (patched) variants > might improve .... well some things (quality ? pressure to release > new stable version?) > > > So we have some options: > > 1) use uclibc-snapshot.tar.bz2 instead of a dated, known working version > (though we can't check the md5sum) > 2) use uclibc git at a specific revision > 3) use uclibc git at head > 4) anything I don't know about? uclibc-ng? > > I'm leaning towards (2) at this point, and will send through a patch for > that. Option 1) may seem easy in the short term, but it gets messed up so easily. We also have a policy to not have any moving-target packages in the same way, so I'm even less inclined to accept it for a libc. Same issue with 3). Integrating a uclibc fork like -ng is probably also a waste of time.
Did you see any real improvements with the snapshot that you used in your patch? FWIW, I consider uClibc a dead end for OpenWrt. After the CC release is done, I want to push for switching to musl by default and fix the remaining issues with that. Unlike uclibc, musl has decent code and an active maintainer and developer community. Unlike glibc, musl is quite small - actually comparable in size to uClibc. In terms of performance, I expect musl to beat both glibc and uClibc. - Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
