Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 09:16:19 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@...nsource.dyc.edu> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch On 06/06/14 13:56, Rich Felker wrote: > I'm about to prepare the 1.0.3 release, and I've been thinking a bit > about the future of the 1.0.x branch. Specifically I'd like to gauge > the extent to which it's being used. So far cherry-picking fixes to it > has been pretty easy, but it's an extra task to keep up with, and the > cherry-picking is probably going to turn into active backporting > somewhere in the near future as the rs-1.0 and master branches > continue to diverge. > > If I don't hear back that there's significant use of the 1.0.x > releases by multiple projects, I'll probably plan to discontinue them > in the next 4 to 6 months, and in the mean time, to release only when > there are serious bugs (as opposed to releasing alongside every 1.1.x > release). Does this sound reasonable? I moved the gentoo stages from 1.0.x to 1.1.1 on amd64, x86, armv7a and mipsel without any issues. This includes about 200 core packages with both build and (some) runtime testing. Everything was fine with both gentoo's vanilla and hardened toolchain with the exception of the __stack_chk_fail_local bug on hardened x86. > > If anyone's using 1.0.x not for the sake of stability but because it > works better in some way for your setup (e.g. size, performance, > application compatibility, etc.) please let me know about that too so > we can see if there's a reasonable way to make 1.1.x work just as well > for you. I did not systematically check size or perf. I found no issues with compatibility as I said above. As far as I'm concerned, I can live without 1.0.x. > > Rich > -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197
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.