Re: [issues] Why eglibc does not provide tarball?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 20 May 2009, Gaye Abdoulaye Walsimou wrote:

> 1- uClibc has buildroot

Something like buildroot is very definitely out of scope for EGLIBC.  
EGLIBC documents a procedure for bootstrapping a toolchain, but is neutral 
as to how you may wish to implement that procedure or another equally good 
procedure; you may use an existing tool such as crosstool or an existing 
GNU/Linux distribution's build procedure or write your own.

> 2- They can fix a version of uClibc (downloadable as tarball) in the
> version of buildroot they deliver to their customers.
> 3- As this version of uClibc is fixed, all its bugs are know, they can
> give advices (workaround) on these bugs and they do not follow a moving
> target (with bugs they have to identify).

These seem very curious to me; I'd take the view that uClibc version 
numbers have little meaning, releases are infrequent and there are no more 
guarantees of binary compatibility for "releases" than for any other 
version, so the natural approach with uClibc would to me be to stablise a 
current snapshot of uClibc development (where you can fix a revision you 
use as a basis for your stabilising patches, but you may as well start 
from the most recent development revision available, and will expect to 
have to patch it to fix issues found in validation in any case).  The 
notion of using any tool version with no local changes seems unrealistic 
for most purposes; GNU/Linux distributions typically have many patches for 
local requirements or that are unsuitable for upstream stable branches.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx