Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:20 +0200 From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com> Cc: wdlkmpx <wdlkmpx@...il.com>, busybox <busybox@...ybox.net>, musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com> 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 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. These "ng" names are not the best idea. Maybe uclibc-ng can just supersede uclibc? We can give www.uclibc.org 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.