| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:54:19PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/17/21 2:24 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 7:40 AM Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> |
| 6 |
> >>> Hi everyone, |
| 7 |
> >>> |
| 8 |
> >>> Can I get feedback on the following news item? (BTW, thanks soap) |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> Title: uClibc-ng retirement on 2023/01/01 |
| 11 |
> >>> Author: Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> |
| 12 |
> >>> Posted: 2021-08-15 |
| 13 |
> >>> Revision: 1 |
| 14 |
> >>> News-Item-Format: 2.0 |
| 15 |
> >>> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/uclibc/* |
| 16 |
> >>> |
| 17 |
> >>> uClibc-ng is mostly abandoned upstream, and since my RFC in Jan 2021, |
| 18 |
> >>> noone has volunteered to step up maintenance or expressed interest in |
| 19 |
> >>> the uClibc-ng profiles. With this announcement we last-rite the "uclibc" |
| 20 |
> >>> profiles, which will be removed on 2023/01/01. For parties interested in |
| 21 |
> >>> an alternative libc, consider moving to musl, which is supported. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> >> 2023? That seems like a pretty long time to wait to remove something |
| 24 |
> >> that isn't very well supported right now. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > +1 |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > While I have no involvement with uClibc-ng, it does seem awfully long |
| 29 |
> > before removal. |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > -Aaron |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> How does 2022-08-01 sound? That's about 1 year. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Since we know it is broken, a year even seems long. |
| 37 |
Also, We can't get rid of the uclibc-based profiles until uclibc is removed. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Thanks, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
William |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> -- |
| 45 |
> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 46 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 47 |
> E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 48 |
> GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 49 |
> GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
| 50 |
> |
Archives