> On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 16 March 2015 at 18:24, Khem Raj <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Patches are fine in this series, however I just want to set the expectations > right here. While having that libc-independent goal is fine. > Sometimes we just can not do it, since uclibc or musl > does not have all the features that glibc has and an app might also be using > it. > making glibc users not have those features is unfair > given that we have a strong mechanism of overrides in OE, it should be used > to this advantage. > > But these patches, which add configure options to enable/disable the relevant > functionality and have been sent upstream - represent the ideal case as once > they're merged won't cost us any effort in the future. >
yes, you might have read the first line in my reply. > Ross
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
