Switching from uClibc to glibc as the default in Buildroot?

[Vineet Gupta]

On Thursday 13 March 2014 01:54 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:07:27AM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Peter Korsgaard <jacmet-2zL2ArBv0bUdnm+yROfE0A at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8 at public.gmane.org> writes:
>>> > >
>>> > >  > Dear Khem Raj,
>>> > >  > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:43:41 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >  >> > 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
>>> > >
>>> > >  > Please break the chicken-and-egg problem, and release 2014.02-rc1 right
>>> > >  > now, spit out a call for testing, and release 2014.02 at the end of the
>>> > >  > month. (Or pick any other date you want, those are just suggestions).
>>> > >
>>> > > Inded. When Bernard suggested the same last year I did test and reported
>>> > > issues, but never got any reply:
>>> > >
>>> > > http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2013-November/048093.html
>>> > >
>> > 
>> > Any further evolution in this matter?
>> > 
>> > Until now, this mail thread did not seem to have triggered any real
>> > activity from the uClibc community.
>> > 
>> > Khem Raj: what is the plan forward? You have requested patches to be
>> > sent, and testing to be performed, and the Buildroot community has
>> > responded by telling that we only have patches that are already in the
>> > uClibc tree (unreleased) and we have been testing this for a long
>> > while already, without problems.
>> > 
>> > Maybe you feel this is not enough, in which case kindly provide more
>> > details about what you consider blocking points to make a release, or
>> > even a release candidate.
> Well, see ML archives with a mail from Peter who tested a somewhat
> recent master and found ARM !LFS to be broken (i still consider !LFS to
> be an important thing to support, despite the maintenance burden).
> [the exact november mail above, btw]
> We have touched this on master as
> 00571b43df2e0554d1b0716681832ba9975177c5 so this in fact did trigger a
> reaction from "the uClibc community". No reaction from the buildroot
> folks that current master resolved this !LFS ARM failure. Zilch.
> See?


I'm not sure if ARM !LFS failure is the same but I've posted (and reminded at
least once) regarding a !LFS build failure on ARC.

http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-January/048174.html
http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-February/048215.html

-Vineet