1.0 release?

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 10 May 2010 06:22:07 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote:
> >> So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either
> >> 1.0 or 1.0-pre.  It is more or less feature complete, isn't it?
> >
> >yeah I have mentioned it on IRC couple of times to have next release be
> > 1.0
>
> the nptl addition would warrant bumping the version to 0.10.0, yes.
> I don't think messing around with the major version and thus
> UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER is justified for mere cosmetic numbers.

Since when does being libc.so.0 have anything to do with the C library's 
version number?

$ ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2009-09-28 00:56 /lib/libc.so.6 -> libc-2.9.so

I.E. my crufty old ubuntu 9.04 laptop is using version 2.9 of libc6.  The "6" 
and the "2.9" are unrelated.  libc5 vs libc6 were two completely different C 
library implementations.  In that context, uClibc is libc0.  That isn't a 
version number, that's as a replacement for the OSABI field in the Elf header 
(e_ident byte 7), because libc5 and libc6 needed to expose the difference at 
the path level to coexist on the same system, and thus couldn't use the ELF 
fields in the file for this.

In that context, we're libc0, and we can be version 1.0 of libc0 just like 
glibc is version 2.9 of libc6.

Going "0.10.0" is just silly.  1.0 means the project is feature complete, and 
can be used as a replacement for glibc.  That appears to be the case.  (It's 
actually been the case since 0.9.26, we're overdue.  Busybox had its 1.0 
release 5 years ago.  Does that mean it ran out of stuff to do?  No, it means 
it's not a toy anymore and we think you should be able to _use_ it.)

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds