Re: [musl] cortex-m support?

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

Hello,

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 01:18:40 -0600, Rob Landley wrote:

> I cc'd the buildroot list, which only has uClibc-based cortex-m support
> at the moment. Why do you suppose I did that?
> 
> Did you want me to send it to the uclibc.org mailing list which hasn't
> had a single post this month except your announcement of your fork's
> release? The list where nobody's noticed the chrome browser can't access
> https://lists.uclibc.org (archives, subscription page, etc) for weeks
> now? And yes, I publicized that fact when I noticed it:

Do you realize that the uclibc-ng project has a mailing list? It is
active, people post patches, and they get merged.

I posted patches on this list, they were merged by Waldemar within the
next day or two.

> Your fork clearly hasn't fixed any of the structural issues uClibc
> developed over the years.

Waldemar has fixed the main problem of uClibc: the lack of regular
releases, the lack of a responsive maintainer that merges patches.

Then, from a technical point of view, Waldemar has added new features,
dropped badly supported architectures, cleaned up a lot of things,
improved the test suite, and more. There are probably a tons of other
things to improve in uClibc-ng, but it's just a matter of receiving
contributions: we can no longer blame the lack of maintainership.

[... snip the rest of the text, TLDR ... ]

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com