Doing a release?

Vineet Gupta Vineet.Gupta1 at synopsys.com
Thu Nov 7 10:54:40 UTC 2013


On 11/07/2013 03:28 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Vineet Gupta,
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:18:17 +0000, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>>> It's just that I think feature-based releases is a never-ending story.
>>> The current feature set hasn't moved too much for a while, so it would
>>> be good to make a release out of it, and as soon as 0.9.34-rc1 is out,
>>> re-open the tree to merge more features: stabilization of 0.9.34 and
>>> integration of additional features for 0.9.35 can take place in
>>> parallel.
>> I agree with Thomas. What matters in the end is that code is merged in mainline.
>> Build systems such a buildroot anyways allow tip snapshot for build so that should
>> be good enough.
> It's true that Buildroot allows to build uClibc snapshots, which is
> useful for people doing active uClibc development.
>
> However, the fact that uClibc tends to almost never do releases is
> causing problems for "normal" usage of uClibc. We currently have 50+
> patches on uClibc, some of them adding features, such as missing
> syscalls/functions. However, while we can apply those patches when
> Buildroot is responsible for building the toolchain (using the
> so-called 'internal backend'), we cannot do that for the uClibc
> pre-built toolchains, such as the ones provided by Analog Devices for
> the Blackfin architecture for example. This is causing problems because
> an increasing number of userspace packages use features such as
> posix_fallocate(), execvpe(), posix_madvise() and so on, which have
> never been part of an uClibc stable release. Therefore, none of the
> existing pre-built toolchains have these features.
>
> If the uClibc community was doing more regular releases, then hopefully
> providers of pre-built toolchains would update their uClibc version,
> and make life easier for uClibc users.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas

I'm in complete agreement with you. What I intended to say was there's no point
delaying uClibc release for a feature since the features itself can still on tip
and still be available with mechanism such as those in buildroot - even for the
extreme case of a new arch port.

-Vineet


More information about the uClibc mailing list