Hello, On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:43:20 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 09:31 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS > > before doing it. > > > > I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and > > the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough. > > > > Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default. > > > > Attached is a patch. > > > > Any comments? > > > > best regards > > Waldemar > > I welcome this change - is there going to be impact on downstream projects > like > busybox. What if it some disables CONFIG_LFS inside busybox ? In Buildroot, we have dropped the ability to disable LFS since March 2015. It was really too annoying to maintain the !LFS case, for no real benefit. So I'm completely fine with uClibc-ng dropping !LFS support upstream, since Buildroot no longer cares about this possibility. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
