On Thu, 18.09.14 21:21, Emil Renner Berthing (syst...@esmil.dk) wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
In general, I don't think we should add patches for the sole purpose
of non-glibc compatibility. You would in most cases be much better
served by
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote:
Axis Communications is running fairly compact version of systemd with some
properties disabled with --disable--xyz. Files are a bit over 10 mb on MIPS
ISA (stripped of binaries and conf files).
Top 10 large files are
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Emil Renner Berthing syst...@esmil.dk wrote:
On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
In general, I don't think we should add patches for the sole purpose
of non-glibc compatibility. You would in most cases be much better
served by adding
Axis Communications is running fairly compact version of systemd with some
properties disabled with --disable--xyz. Files are a bit over 10 mb on MIPS ISA
(stripped of binaries and conf files).
Top 10 large files are (in kb)
276 ./Root/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
280 ./Root/usr/bin/udevadm
Hi,
Around the internet one can read statements such as systemd
is designed with glibc in mind and the systemd developers' idea
of a standard libc is one that has bug-for-bug compatibility with
glibc. So in a fit of naivety I decided to test this out and see
how much work it would take to make
On 09/18/2014 01:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
The real reason is of course that I'd like to see systemd running
on my router and other small devices that usually run some OpenWRT
derivative.
The openwrt community is still going forward with their (re)-invention
of init system called
On 18 September 2014 16:10, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/18/2014 01:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
The real reason is of course that I'd like to see systemd running
on my router and other small devices that usually run some OpenWRT
derivative.
The openwrt
Hi,
On 18/09/14 17:13, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
On 18 September 2014 16:10, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 09/18/2014 01:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
The real reason is of course that I'd like to see systemd running
on my router and other small devices that
On 09/18/2014 02:20 PM, Philippe De Swert wrote:
Hi,
On 18/09/14 17:13, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
On 18 September 2014 16:10, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/18/2014 01:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
The real reason is of course that I'd like to see systemd
El 18/09/14 a las #4, Emil Renner Berthing escribió:
Hi,
Around the internet one can read statements such as systemd
is designed with glibc in mind and the systemd developers' idea
of a standard libc is one that has bug-for-bug compatibility with
glibc.
For all practical purposes this is
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing syst...@esmil.dk wrote:
Around the internet one can read statements such as systemd
is designed with glibc in mind and the systemd developers' idea
of a standard libc is one that has bug-for-bug compatibility with
glibc. So in a fit of
Hi Tom,
On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
In general, I don't think we should add patches for the sole purpose
of non-glibc compatibility. You would in most cases be much better
served by adding the missing functionality to your libc, rather than
to each of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
