On Thu, 18.09.14 21:21, Emil Renner Berthing (syst...@esmil.dk) wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen 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 addi
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
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
2
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen 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 functionali
Hi Tom,
On 18 September 2014 18:29, Tom Gundersen 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 project requ
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Emil Renner Berthing 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 naivety I dec
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 c
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" 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 a
Hi,
On 18/09/14 17:13, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> On 18 September 2014 16:10, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> 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
On 18 September 2014 16:10, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" 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 community is st
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 pro
11 matches
Mail list logo
