From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5201 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Anthony G. Basile" Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 09:16:19 -0400 Message-ID: <539310A3.9060405@opensource.dyc.edu> References: <20140606175617.GA3914@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1402146935 21591 80.91.229.3 (7 Jun 2014 13:15:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:15:35 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5206-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jun 07 15:15:28 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 1WtGT1-00049A-SB for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:15:27 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3137 invoked by uid 550); 7 Jun 2014 13:15:22 -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 3123 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2014 13:15:21 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: <20140606175617.GA3914@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5201 Archived-At: On 06/06/14 13:56, Rich Felker wrote: > I'm about to prepare the 1.0.3 release, and I've been thinking a bit > about the future of the 1.0.x branch. Specifically I'd like to gauge > the extent to which it's being used. So far cherry-picking fixes to it > has been pretty easy, but it's an extra task to keep up with, and the > cherry-picking is probably going to turn into active backporting > somewhere in the near future as the rs-1.0 and master branches > continue to diverge. > > If I don't hear back that there's significant use of the 1.0.x > releases by multiple projects, I'll probably plan to discontinue them > in the next 4 to 6 months, and in the mean time, to release only when > there are serious bugs (as opposed to releasing alongside every 1.1.x > release). Does this sound reasonable? I moved the gentoo stages from 1.0.x to 1.1.1 on amd64, x86, armv7a and mipsel without any issues. This includes about 200 core packages with both build and (some) runtime testing. Everything was fine with both gentoo's vanilla and hardened toolchain with the exception of the __stack_chk_fail_local bug on hardened x86. > > If anyone's using 1.0.x not for the sake of stability but because it > works better in some way for your setup (e.g. size, performance, > application compatibility, etc.) please let me know about that too so > we can see if there's a reasonable way to make 1.1.x work just as well > for you. I did not systematically check size or perf. I found no issues with compatibility as I said above. As far as I'm concerned, I can live without 1.0.x. > > Rich > -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197