Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 11:20:25PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > If you're going to add NPTL support after five years of development, and > you're going to have at least 3 release candidates, and we're going to > test everything to the hilt... > > Call the release 1.0.0 please. For whatever my opinion is presently worth (having gotten this project stated, yet having been otherwise occupied for the past several years), I approve and second Rob's modest proposal. -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:29:43PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: >On Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 11:20:25PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >> If you're going to add NPTL support after five years of development, and >> you're going to have at least 3 release candidates, and we're going to >> test everything to the hilt... >> >> Call the release 1.0.0 please. > >For whatever my opinion is presently worth (having gotten this >project stated, yet having been otherwise occupied for the past s/stat/start/ >several years), I approve and second Rob's modest proposal. This does not currently warrant a 1.0 See previous (below adjusted) mail: chiming in 1.0.0-rc1 TODO list for 1.0.0-rc1, random order. - Adjust Rules.mak MAJOR_VERSION, MINOR_VERSION, SUBLEVEL, EXTRAVERSION Make sure that soname remains at .0 - disable !NPTL for arches that have NPTL impls. Disable threads for everybody who doesn't have NPTL to force psychological strain (one could argue about this). Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification o alpha + arm o avr32 o bfin o cris o e1 o frv o h8300 o hppa + i386 o i960 o ia64 o m68k o microblaze o mips o nios o nios2 + powerpc o sh o sh64 o sparc o v850 o vax o x86_64 o xtensa Arches that pretend to support threads (i.e. NPTL) have to submit sensible testresults to be whitelisted (ideally on a regular base, automated). - SUSv4 audit This would be the big thing, API-wise, to warrant a 1.0. The SUSv4 audit is really crucial to call it 1.0. Help in this effort is very much appreciated, as always. We will (at least) not wait as long as between .31 -> .32 for a .33, just a couple of months this time and we will do our best to make our SUSv4 release a great 1.0 ! :) ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
RE: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
> -Original Message- > From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- > Fischer > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM > To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org > Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 > Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification > o mips I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have it. I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? Andy ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:38:00PM -0600, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On >Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- >> Fischer >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM >> To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org >> Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 >> Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification >> o mips > >I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have >it. i've updated the TODO file accordingly. > >I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? why not wait. Remember that it's a version number, nothing more. See TODO ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On 02/09/2011 01:48 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:38:00PM -0600, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On >> Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- >>> Fischer >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM >>> To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org >>> Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 >>> Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification >>> o mips >> >> I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have >> it. > > i've updated the TODO file accordingly. >> >> I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? > > why not wait. Remember that it's a version number, nothing more. See > TODO > Do you mean "We've had meaningless release numbers for so long, why stop now?" The reason not to wait is that if we don't call the NPTL release be 1.0, after 5 years of development, we will never have a 1.0 release. If you're waiting for the todo list to run out, it's not going to happen. There will always be SOMETHING left to do. As for the "nothing more", it signals that it's ready for significant use and that people should give the thing a try. Linux Weekly News or H-online could probably be convinced to cover a 1.0 release of uClibc and do a comparison between eglibc and uClibc. They're much less likely to do so (and people are less likely to read it) for a 0.9.32 release. Remember that the project is still recovering from a multi-year development drought, and that the eglibc and klibc projects were launched because uClibc was not seen as a reasonable alternative to glibc so people created their own. (Yes, I asked.) The majority of your "needs verification" list boils down to "we can't have bugs in our 1.0 release". Um... that means we can't have a 1.0 release. A more charitable reading is "We have to do everything we can to make sure there are no bugs in our 1.0 release, if there are things left that we could do then it's not time for 1.0 yet", see "always going to be something left to do" above... When the Linux kernel had its 1.0 release in 1994, the project was a little over 3 years old. BusyBox (which is about as old as uClibc, maintained by the same set of people for the start of that, and hit its "you can build a usable system out of this" stage at about the same time) had its 1.0 release six years ago, and that was after more than a year of 1.0-pre and 1.0-rc releases. I believe getting our development process unblocked to the point where we could conceivably switch to time based releases (as the linux kernel, busybox, most distributions... pretty much everything interesting) has already done, is a milestone. The previous milestone (0.9.26, stuff now "just works" by default so we stop tracking a known-working application list) went by unremarked. No upcoming milestone is more significant than either of those, and if we _aren't_ already planning what to do next by the time we reach them something is wrong. Rob ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
RE: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
> -Original Message- > From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer [mailto:rep.dot@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:48 PM > To: ANDY KENNEDY > Cc: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org > Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:38:00PM -0600, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On > >Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- > >> Fischer > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM > >> To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org > >> Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 > >> Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification > >> o mips > > > >I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have > >it. > > i've updated the TODO file accordingly. > > > >I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? > > why not wait. Remember that it's a version number, nothing more. See > TODO Agreed, it is a version number, nothing more. If you truly believe this to ONLY be a version number, bump the thing and get it over with. Andy ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On 09/02/2011 19:32, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: The SUSv4 audit is really crucial to call it 1.0. Help in this effort is very much appreciated, as always. The audit seems like a great label for the milestone: version 2.0? I hope that getting 1.0 out of the door will bring a bunch of new interest, which itself will quickly drive v1.1 and v1.2, culminating quickly in v2.0 with the audit done? That said - many thanks to all who have contributed to this great project and especially to getting "1.0" out of the door hopefully soon! Cheers all Ed W ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On (09/02/11 20:48), Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:38:00PM -0600, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On > >Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- > >> Fischer > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM > >> To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org > >> Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 > >> Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification > >> o mips > > > >I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have > >it. > > i've updated the TODO file accordingly. > > > >I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? > > why not wait. Remember that it's a version number, nothing more. See > TODO Its just not number IMHO. Its a statement which reflects our progress and stating 1.0 is right at present. We have had major feature in form of nptl and I have always been suggesting that we call it 1.0 when we release nptl. TODO list can be adjusted to be part of 1.2 for SuS compatibility Thanks -Khem > ___ > uClibc mailing list > uClibc@uclibc.org > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
RE: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
My testing showed that protected symbol feature is still broken on MIPS. If you run cancel23 in testsuite, you can see it. I check ELF binary of libc and libpthread and attributes are expected, but not sure whether gcc I used really works nicely with ldso in rc2 in terms of protected symbol. The inlined forwarder make debugging this to be very hard too. I am using rc2 built with gcc-4.5.2. If any other can successfully run cancel23 on MIPS, please let me know which gcc you used. Thanks, Jian -Original Message- From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Khem Raj Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:37 PM To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Cc: uclibc@uclibc.org Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 On (09/02/11 20:48), Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 01:38:00PM -0600, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org [mailto:uclibc-boun...@uclibc.org] On > >Behalf Of Bernhard Reutner- > >> Fischer > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:33 PM > >> To: ander...@codepoet.org; Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org > >> Subject: Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0 > >> Where '+' means ported, 'o' means TODO/needs verification > >> o mips > > > >I'm using NPTL on Mips, if you consider this verification, then you have > >it. > > i've updated the TODO file accordingly. > > > >I too support the bump to 1.0 -- why wait? > > why not wait. Remember that it's a version number, nothing more. See > TODO Its just not number IMHO. Its a statement which reflects our progress and stating 1.0 is right at present. We have had major feature in form of nptl and I have always been suggesting that we call it 1.0 when we release nptl. TODO list can be adjusted to be part of 1.2 for SuS compatibility Thanks -Khem > ___ > uClibc mailing list > uClibc@uclibc.org > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
Re: A modest proposal: call it 1.0
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > Its just not number IMHO. Its a statement which reflects our progress and > stating 1.0 is right at present. We have had major feature in form of nptl > and I have > always been suggesting that we call it 1.0 when we release nptl. > > TODO list can be adjusted to be part of 1.2 for SuS compatibility +1 NTPL itself definitively qualifies an 1.0, even if it was only supported for 1 arch. -- Natanael Copa ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
