On 4 May 2012 16:56, Mark Salter <msal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 16:40 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> Mark, this is handled on the future branch. Attaching the relevant >> patches for reference. > > Ah, good to know. Thanks for pointing that out. > > The code in the future branch is much better organized but it > still relies on the fcntl syscall which may not exist. It also > tests for the fctnl64 locking commands unnecessarily for some > configurations. > > So, in general should I be working on the future branch for > new development?
We are in the progress to test the branch so we can apply it to master. Currently arm seems to be broken, help with unbreaking it or diagnosing which patch broke it is welcome as well as testing other arches with those patches applied to master. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
