On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 09:13 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On 06/22/2011 04:22 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khe
On 06/22/2011 09:13 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 04:22 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> >> Since applying th
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> >> On
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
>> >> wrote:
>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> >> Since appl
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 04:22 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
wrote:
> On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, M
On 06/22/2011 04:22 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle
>>> wrote:
On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> Since applying this update, I'm not
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Richard Purdie
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> > On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> >> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file,
>> >> which
>>
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:31 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
> >> breaks various things like busybox mount.
> >>
> >> Is anyone else
On 6/22/11 5:31 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
>>> breaks various things like busybox mount.
>>>
>>> Is anyone else seeing this behavio
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
>> breaks various things like busybox mount.
>>
>> Is anyone else seeing this behavior?
>
> Reverting:
>
> 2a68cf4d315cdd18766de
On 06/22/2011 01:28 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
>> breaks various things like busybox mount.
>>
>> Is anyone else seeing this behavior?
>
> Reverting:
>
> 2a68cf4d315cdd18766de0c75928f
On 6/22/11 1:35 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
> breaks various things like busybox mount.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this behavior?
Reverting:
2a68cf4d315cdd18766de0c75928ff17846a6cd7 and
190a946e9a4213944e3ee675c4b3e18701698e8
Since applying this update, I'm not longer getting an rpc/rpc.h file, which
breaks various things like busybox mount.
Is anyone else seeing this behavior?
--Mark
On 6/22/11 10:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 18:43 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> This patchset upgrades eglibc 2.13
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 18:43 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> This patchset upgrades eglibc 2.13 -> 2.14
>
> Needed a binutils fix for x86_64
>
> Package sotruss which is new in eglibc 2.14
This patchset upgrades eglibc 2.13 -> 2.14
Needed a binutils fix for x86_64
Package sotruss which is new in eglibc 2.14
The following changes since commit 78de64f58b98101f5be5778e9
18 matches
Mail list logo