On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >>On (10/05/10 00:02), Rob Landley wrote: >>> So now that NPTL is in, it sounds like the next release should be either 1.0 >>> or 1.0-pre. It is more or less feature complete, isn't it? >> >>yeah I have mentioned it on IRC couple of times to have next release be 1.0 > > the nptl addition would warrant bumping the version to 0.10.0, yes. > I don't think messing around with the major version and thus > UCLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER is justified for mere cosmetic numbers.
Its easy to keep the dynamic linker even if you bump major version: diff --git a/Rules.mak b/Rules.mak index fd0de49..8ff9f2d 100644 --- a/Rules.mak +++ b/Rules.mak @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ MINOR_VERSION := 9 SUBLEVEL := 32 EXTRAVERSION :=-git VERSION := $(MAJOR_VERSION).$(MINOR_VERSION).$(SUBLEVEL) -ABI_VERSION := $(MAJOR_VERSION) +ABI_VERSION := 0 ifneq ($(EXTRAVERSION),) VERSION := $(VERSION)$(EXTRAVERSION) endif _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc