On 2020-02-09, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 February 2020 16:54:45 CET Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Would be great if you could also test with patched u-boot in stable
>> Debian - so we can consider fixing this in a point release.
>
> I've tested together:
> - Debian's u-boot
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 11:57 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings:
>
> > If I recall correctly, glibc *will* provide both entry points, so there
> > is no ABI break. But the size of time_t (etc.) exposed through libc-
> > dev is fixed at glibc build time.
>
> Is this a Debian-specific
Quoting Dominique Dumont (2020-02-09 17:07:12)
> On Saturday, 8 February 2020 16:54:45 CET Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Would be great if you could also test with patched u-boot in stable
> > Debian - so we can consider fixing this in a point release.
>
> I've tested together:
> - Debian's u-boot
On Saturday, 8 February 2020 16:54:45 CET Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Would be great if you could also test with patched u-boot in stable
> Debian - so we can consider fixing this in a point release.
I've tested together:
- Debian's u-boot debian/2019.01+dfsg-7 with CONFIG_GMAC_TX_DELAY=3 tweak
-
* Ben Hutchings:
> If I recall correctly, glibc *will* provide both entry points, so there
> is no ABI break. But the size of time_t (etc.) exposed through libc-
> dev is fixed at glibc build time.
Is this a Debian-specific decision?
There has been a proposal upstream not to support 32-bit
5 matches
Mail list logo
