Hello Steven,
IIUC, 0.9.30 will come out of uClibc-NPTL branch?
Can you post your ARM and SH4 patches (which are based on uClibc-NPTL
branch) on this mailing list or put them in download area?
Regards,
Nitin
Steven J. Hill wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0200, Christian MICHON
Hello Rob,
I am curious now to find out if your curiosity got answered from this
discussion?
If yes, Could you please share your conclusions about uClibc future?
Regards,
Nitin
Rob Landley wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 5:18:32 am Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Can you give me Peter's
On Friday 07 September 2007 11:18:18 am Nitin Gupta wrote:
Hello Rob,
I am curious now to find out if your curiosity got answered from this
discussion?
My question was along the lines of What's up with this? so I'm not quite
sure what form an answer would be expected to take...
If yes,
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Brook
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:40 PM
To: uclibc@uclibc.org
Subject: Re: Now I'm curious...
On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:49:12AM -0400, Crane, Matthew wrote:
What makes you say it would
Hi Rob, folks,
On Wednesday 05 September 2007 00:38, Rob Landley wrote:
Er, deciding to allow means nothing if nobody does the work. My
objection is that people who were chased away from the current uClibc
tree have since been doing more work than the people who did the chasing.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0200, Christian MICHON wrote:
so, the NPTL stuff is ready...
My branch contains a fully working NPTL for the MIPS architecture only.
I have patches from CodeSourcery for ARM and ST Microelectronics for
SuperH 4. Those are the only three architectures
Steven J. Hill wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0200, Christian MICHON wrote:
so, the NPTL stuff is ready...
My branch contains a fully working NPTL for the MIPS architecture only.
I have patches from CodeSourcery for ARM and ST Microelectronics for
SuperH 4. Those are
Hi Steven,
I would be interested in the ARM NPTL patches for uClibc,
Best regards,
Steve
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 07:59 -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0200, Christian MICHON wrote:
so, the NPTL stuff is ready...
My branch contains a fully working NPTL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
latest SH4 uClibc public release in RPM source package:
http://www.stlinux.com/pub/stlinux/2.3ear/SRPMS/stlinux23ear-target-uclibc-nptl-0.9.29-23.src.rpm
There is also an SH4 uclibc toolchain and user-space applications (e.g.
busybox). Binary
Have you built nptl for arm7 no-mmu? I'm woried that I may be making
the effort to integrate it into our build for a big let down and
debugging effort in the end.
It will not work. Using NPTL on a no-MMU system is going to be pretty
worthless IMHO. You should stick with linuxthreads. Not
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:44:55PM -0500, Kevin Day wrote:
Except for:
1) There is no stable uClibc, 0.9.28 is bugridden, 0.9.29 requires a
number of patches only available in svn (let alone countless other
bugs yet to be publicized) , and releases prior to 0.9.28 seem to have
Yikes, is
On Monday 03 September 2007 4:08:06 am Christian MICHON wrote:
On 9/2/07, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
I'm poking Peter to put out a release. I'll let you know if he does.
(I'd happily send _him_ a cake, but he appears to be in Europe...)
Hi Rob,
and why not allowing us
- Original Message -
From: Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Christian MICHON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: uclibc@uclibc.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Now I'm curious...
On Monday 03 September 2007 4:08:06 am Christian MICHON wrote:
On 9/2/07, Rob Landley
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 01:08:53AM -0700, Nitin Gupta wrote:
I agree that Peter was a valuable and aggressive contributor. It's sad that
instead of communicating
each other's concerns, high-profile committer(s) snatched psm's commit
rights.
Your facts are incorrect. Peter voluntarily
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 08:44, Rob Landley wrote:
Er, deciding to allow means nothing if nobody does the work. My objection
is that people who were chased away from the current uClibc tree have since
been doing more work than the people who did the chasing. That doesn't seem
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 8:21:13 am Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 08:44, Rob Landley wrote:
Er, deciding to allow means nothing if nobody does the work. My
objection is that people who were chased away from the current uClibc
tree have since been doing more work
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 3:08:53 am Nitin Gupta wrote:
I vote for offering him a maintainer position again.
Er, I don't think it works that way. (We vote?) And I don't think he wants
the job.
The great thing about open source is you can go off and do your own thing.
He's done so. I'm
17 matches
Mail list logo
