From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/797 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Isaac Dunham Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9 Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 13:17:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20120502131740.3bc8dba5.idunham@lavabit.com> References: <20120424003111.GN14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <4FA10332.603@unixsol.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335989875 12925 80.91.229.3 (2 May 2012 20:17:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 20:17:55 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-798-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed May 02 22:17:54 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SPfzm-0000Py-JM for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2012 22:17:54 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26187 invoked by uid 550); 2 May 2012 20:17:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26176 invoked from network); 2 May 2012 20:17:53 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=XyNTOZiDr5Xl+ptTndZAqzxkM1kTc438H4RSJb6YTHgpAeQCnr6mWGjhbT0qOTH44913j1rZBtWTrde6ehMvJxkXBWPbpbRV096dneDe20Zw4XqkAxQWOZIzw+yHda4tultR4/T/Jhu2BC55egBBNAQcLHBD6rEYLVVyeyq4ipw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; In-Reply-To: <4FA10332.603@unixsol.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:797 Archived-At: On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:49:38 +0300 Georgi Chorbadzhiyski wrote: > Around 04/24/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Felker scribbled: > > As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all > > the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few > > release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing > > scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc > > 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report > > bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as > > possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9. > > Hi, there were talks about re-licensing musl to BSD like license, what > happened to that? Here's what he said: |I'll definitely be making some licensing changes down the line. Please |give me some time to weigh the benefits of the different options and |focus on the code, especially at this time while widespread deployment |is still a ways off. My idea right now (subject to change at my own whim |or suggestions from the community) is that the license might change at |the 0.9 or 1.0 milestone, especially if it looks like we could be |positioned to push musl into widespread usage "in the wild" at that |point. I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet (for reasons not known to me). (I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc) -- Isaac Dunham