On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 12/22/14 16:37, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 18:24:32 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
>>
Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms
like toolchain.eclass are generated
Anthony G. Basile posted on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:36:44 -0500 as excerpted:
> I've watched musl and uclibc and just hit up against the glibc changes
> as they mysteriously rain down from Drepper.
Just a quick reply to this side point...
There's no indication in your post that you're aware that Dre
Hi all,
I'm going to be doing some upgrades of Gitolite on our Git services,
it'll be split between Dec 24th and Dec 26th.
Watch #gentoo-dev IRC topic for a more live report of times, but I
expect the outage portions to be under 45 minutes collectively.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (23 Dec 2014)
# Homepage returns 404 which probably suggests upstream has vanished.
# Superseded by app-text/dos2unix. Bug #533222
app-misc/fixdos
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQF
Am 23. Dec 2014, 16:51 schrieb William Hubbs :
>> just the simple fact that crossdev without the ability to select
>> specific versions of glibc is only half as useful. And please, do not
>> underestimate the usefulness of our crossdev script in this regard!
>
> I'm not saying anything about b
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:46:28AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 12/23/14 09:39, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which wa
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised about this discussion as Mike, who currently
> maintains the toolchain, has never implied that suddenly older versions
> of glibc are unusable. Or that we need a big cleanup.
>
> He simply stated two facts (that
On 12/23/14 09:39, William Hubbs wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent;
let's go back to my specific question about glibc.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent;
> > let's go back to my specific question about glibc.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:41PM +0100,
On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent;
let's go back to my specific question about glibc.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
some of such software is
binary, some other is too large to be
On 12/22/14 16:37, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 18:24:32 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms
like toolchain.eclass are generated, with dozens of case distinctions
for packages that *nearly* noone needs. Y
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Because of that, i see no reason to keep the older versions of glibc
> around. This would also give us a chance to clean up the ebuilds without
> causing massive breakage. the eblits need to die.
>
Who is actually maintaining glibc, and w
I'm a bit surprised about this discussion as Mike, who currently
maintains the toolchain, has never implied that suddenly older versions
of glibc are unusable. Or that we need a big cleanup.
He simply stated two facts (that have been true for a long time)
- for a current kernel a current toolcha
13 matches
Mail list logo
