On Wednesday, July 09, 2014 09:39:50 PM Steven Honeyman wrote: > On 9 July 2014 21:28, Bartłomiej Piotrowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > If only you were curious enough to actually use musl at least once it > > would be clear to you that the branch naming scheme used by upstream is > > at least misleading. Whatever you do 1.1.x is newer than 1.0 and in > > many cases is more useful. > > > > But sure, better whine about clang and make unrelated comparison to > > developemnt of drivers in Linux kernel. Good luck, you are going to > > need it a lot. > > > > -- > > Bartłomiej Piotrowski > > http://bpiotrowski.pl/ > > "treat others as you would be treated; respect them and their views, > even if you disagree with them." - Arch Wiki > > Are you really that ignorant/stupid/insulting? Here let me help you: > > (from http://www.musl-libc.org/download.html) > ----------------------- > Current Versions > Mainline - 1.1.3 > Stable - 1.0.3 > -----------------------
Not to butt-in, but based on the website's description of the Mainline branch, that is the one that should be packaged by default, and the Stable branch should be the special case. "Mainline - 1.1.3 This series is actively developed but intended for use in production environments as long as appropriate testing is performed, and should be preferred whenever there is a need for supporting an arbitrary, expanding set of packages or environments."[1] "Stable - 1.0.3 This series does not add new features and avoids changes that might affect building packages against musl or using applications in environments where they are already known to work. It is intended mostly for developers targetting a fixed profile of application software and kernel, such as in embedded development. "[1] > Oh! did I forget to mention that it helps if you use bother to use the > search facility once in a while. > Click this: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/musl-latest/ > > ...and check the submitter/maintainer/packager > > > Steven. (aka stevenhoneyman if you STILL haven't realised!)
