4 ms·
> - dietlibc: only 1 release since 2013[4] you missed the first entry (20180924). > Another factor to consider is release cadence It's questionable that "mor
by jackewiehose 7y ago
> - dietlibc: only 1 release since 2013[4]
you missed the first entry (20180924).
> Another factor to consider is release cadence
It's questionable that "more releases" == "better". Sometimes software is (ideally) just done (except for security issues). I use a lot of software that has no significant changes since decades. Regarding a libc-replacement I couldn't name a single important thing for the last years.
But of course, no release could also be a bad sign, like beeing abandoned or that is has just no users (testers).
- jcranmer 7y ago> Regarding a libc-replacement I couldn't name a single important thing for the last years. * Supporting new syscalls, such as getrandom(), or extra options on existing syscalls (e.g., socket options). * Support for libc-components of new hardware versions, such as the register state information that you get on signals. * Supporting new versions of C, such as C11. * Improving performance of threading and memory allocation, among other things. * Updating Unicode tables for locale information.
- tedunangst 7y agoI don't think openbsd libc has ever kept the same version for two consecutive releases (six months). Which doesn't even count bug fixes as a version change. There's always something to add or remove.