From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5232 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:16:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20140611131638.GS179@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140606175617.GA3914@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <53983242.3090403@f-prot.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1402492622 11944 80.91.229.3 (11 Jun 2014 13:17:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:17:02 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5237-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jun 11 15:16:54 2014 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 1WuiOZ-0006gL-D5 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:16:51 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30009 invoked by uid 550); 11 Jun 2014 13:16:50 -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 29998 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2014 13:16:50 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53983242.3090403@f-prot.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5232 Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Oliver Schneider wrote: > Hi Rich, > > in my case I'll try to stick to the latest version labeled "stable". Thanks for the feedback -- it's nice to know at least somebody is using it and the effort packaging isn't going to waste. > The website currently still doesn't call 1.1.2 stable, so I simply > haven't upgraded to it yet. > > * Latest release is 1.1.2. > * Current stable maintenance release is 1.0.3. > > I think many others will share thus view, because it's best to rely on > the developer for that information, i.e. whether some code is deemed > stable or not. For reference (I'm not sure this is published anywhere; it probably should be) "stable" here means "no unnecessary changes that risk disturbing an existing working deployment". It's not a matter of how reliable or bug-free the release is. My intended audience for stable is users who have fairly constant sets of packages built against musl and who don't want to deal with changes that might affect their build procedures, nonstandard or undocumented behaviors their programs might be relying on, etc. The release series from master (currently 1.1.x) on the other hand is probably a better choice if you're expanding your set of software built against musl, aiming to support a widening range of kernel versions, etc. Rich