On Fri, 13.07.12 10:13, Dmitry Golubovsky ([email protected]) wrote: > 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, implementing this 100 times in 1000 packages instead of once in uclibc sounds like a recipe for increasing code size, not saving it. Also, this functionally are really generally useful, so please consider fixing them in uclibc for the benefit of all its users. > Well, OK. I suspect that there is not so much interest to accept these > patches upstream, correct? Nope, sorry, we generally believe in fixing problems where the problems, instead of working around them elsewhere. I hope this is understandable, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
