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 15:36:52 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <>
To: Denys Vlasenko <>
Cc: wdlkmpx <>, busybox <>, musl
 <>, Waldemar Brodkorb <>
Subject: Re: bbox: musl versus uclibc


On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:25:20 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

> These "ng" names are not the best idea.
> Maybe uclibc-ng can just supersede uclibc?

Waldemar proposed many, many times to Bernhard to take over the
project, and Bernhard essentially never replied. So it was either
adding -ng or doing nothing.

I think adding -ng was better than doing nothing :)

And yes, I believe uClibc-ng should just supersede uClibc, or at least
that should point to to make more
people aware of the fact that uClibc is alive again.

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

Cc'ing Waldemar, who maintains uClibc-ng.

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.