Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 14 July 2006 04:28, Ned Ludd wrote: > >> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 23:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 13 July 2006 04:06, r1 wrote: >>> >>>> I'm trying to subscribe to the gentoo-arm mailing list but the mail >>>> could not be delivered. Is this mailing list alive ? >>>> >>> no, i had it killed >>> >>> >>>> or Does an >>>> new/alternative mailing list talking about arm exist ? >>>> >>> your e-mailing the new list now >>> >> Can you please add the list back. >> > > no, it rarely got traffic > > >> This list should not be dealing with native compiles of glibc. >> > > i dont see why not ... Gentoo embedded is for embedded processors ... so > while > we highly encourage uClibc, i dont see why we should cock block glibc > -mike >
Hi, > i dont see why not ... Gentoo embedded is for embedded processors ... so > while > we highly encourage uClibc, i dont see why we should cock block glibc > -mike I agree that uClibc is focused for embedded system and should be preferred to glibc but now some customers prefer glibc on embedded system for some psychological reasons (most of them believe that uClibc is not enough ready). Furthermore I will not be surprised that we will continue to use glibc because NAND/NOR chip memory capabilities are growing and for specific mobile products we can now find HDD inside. R1. -- [email protected] mailing list
