[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:34:28 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To: wdlkmpx <wdlkmpx@...il.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, busybox
<busybox@...ybox.net>, musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc
Hello,
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:59:41 -0500, wdlkmpx wrote:
> I'm sure there was plenty of people willing to contribute to uclibc,
> there is even an updated fork.
>
> The project has been badly managed.. thats the only reason i can think
> of for this situation to happen
uClibc-ng is alive at https://uclibc-ng.org/. Regular releases
(actually more regular than musl in recent months!), updated web site,
responsive maintainer, lots of cleanup in the code base, and QA effort.
So saying that uClibc is dead is completely incorrect.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
