Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:34:28 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <>
To: wdlkmpx <>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <>, busybox
 <>, musl <>
Subject: Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc


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 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 Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering

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.