Switching from uClibc to glibc as the default in Buildroot?

[Khem Raj]

On Feb 18, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Jody Lee Bruchon <jody at jodybruchon.com> wrote:

> On February 18, 2014 7:23:11 PM EST, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>> inclusion into master. Secondly, would
>> it be just fine if the release is made
>> in form of a git branch and no tarballs?
> 
> I would like to point out that the last release of uClibc with a version number was released 2012-05-15.

there is no need to state the obvious.

> This is a 21-month gap since the last release, which usually leads people to believe that the project is stagnating or no longer maintained (which it may have been, since there were no Git commits in 2013 save for a few in early January.) It also forces anyone trying to release to come up with their own way to handle versioning.
> 
> There are a great number of fixes since the last numbered release and I for one would greatly appreciate having at least a "testing" release with a bumped version number to use. Other than the ldso stat call problem I reported a couple of weeks ago, uClibc trunk has been working fairly well, and most bugs I run into are the typical growing pains of toolchain building from scratch rather than uClibc problems.

so get going start testing git/master and report issues or successes you have.
help in testing it out, run uclibc test suites or any others you have setups for

> 
> I don't think that a "Git release" is appropriate for these reasons. Besides, if you did tag a Git commit with a version number, there's also no reason not to put out a tarball to go with it, right?

it needs some work whereas with git you can download the tars from cgit, but not a big issue. We can release tar balls too.

> 
> -Jody Bruchon