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 15:25:20 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <>
Cc: wdlkmpx <>, busybox <>, 
	musl <>
Subject: Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<> wrote:
> 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 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.

These "ng" names are not the best idea.

Maybe uclibc-ng can just supersede uclibc?

We can give domain (or the server itself) to it.

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.