1.0 release?

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Tue May 11 07:37:08 UTC 2010


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:18:52AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
>On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
><rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> 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.
>
>Its easy to keep the dynamic linker even if you bump major version:

ah, right. I thought you were talking about the library file-name.
Bumping the so version is a different thing, we will do that, sure.


More information about the uClibc mailing list