Hi, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better (and beneficial to others) to implement missing > functionality in uclibc? I am not a maintainer of uclibc (and not a maintainer of buildroot either, just a contributor of few packages). I cannot answer this, sorry. Kay Sievers wrote: > Looks like. All of these functions seem generally useful and should > not be worked around in user code which relies on them. I think this is a goal of uclibc (just IMHO) not to implement every extension glibc has, saving on code size. Besides there are glibc-based toolchains for buildroot, I am just not using them. Well, OK. I suspect that there is not so much interest to accept these patches upstream, correct? Thanks. -- Dmitry Golubovsky Anywhere on the Web _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
