0.9.33 branch development / release process

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi Bernhard,
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote,

> On February 6, 2015 12:04:30 AM GMT+01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On February 5, 2015 6:57:53 PM GMT+01:00, Andy Voltz
> ><andy.voltz at timesys.com> wrote:
> >>What is the current release process for uClibc?
> >>
> >>I'm looking to bump our build system to a newer uClibc version, but
> >>there
> >>are no new release tags since 0.9.33.2. It seems like the 0.9.33
> >branch
> >>could be treated as version 0.9.33.3, but there was never a tag, and
> >
> >We will have a 0.9.33.3 off the 0.9.33 branch.
> >
> >>now
> >>master is 0.9.33.4-git.
> >>
> >>Is the process to create a branch for the version once it's
> >development
> >>is
> >>complete? I'd rather not use 0.9.33 branch if it is some abandoned /
> >>unstable effort, but at the same time the master branch seems active
> >>enough
> >>to not treat as a stable release.
> >
> >I consider master pretty stable and intend to have a new stable release
> >of a 0.9.34 off master hopefully this month.
> 
> Changing babies nappies let's make this start of march...
> 
> m68k still hitting .sgot binutils asserts though but on the plus side major arches seem to do well, from cursory testing.
> Thanks,

Did you try to use -fPIC to compile the code for m68k?
It helped me to get the testsuite compile without binutils asserts.

best regards
 Waldemar