On Monday, February 17, 2014 14:35:24 Christopher Meng wrote: > 2014-2-17 PM1:42 "Mike Frysinger" <[email protected]>: > > what is this "we" business ? lots of people use uClibc, and that isn't > > the problem here. in fact, building 2013.62 w/uClibc works just fine for > > me. > > Lots of people don't use it as well.
i never said everyone uses it whereas you said "we don't use it". there is no collective "we" that you can speak authoritatively for. > Thus many people can't help since we > can't be in the same environment like his basically, then we are impossible > to find the problem as the conditions are not the same. sorry that is bs. getting a system using uClibc instead of glibc is not hard at all (there are released distros based on it) which means it is not "impossible". further, it doesn't take a whole lot of deductive reasoning to think about the problem and where the issue actually lies. > But never because of not tied to Linux. i have no idea what that means. uClibc is a C library, not a kernel. > > the problem is that Steve's kernel headers are broken. he didn't say what > > version he's using, but i'm guessing ancient considering that header was > > fixed in the 2.6.29 release to include linux/types.h correctly. > > Maybe, but who knows this exactly especially when we(don't you?) don't know > about the details. well, my response was a lot more reasonable/useful than your dismissive one line response -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
