This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: glibc-2.4 changes

From: Philip Blundell <pb at reciva dot com>
To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh at wantstofly dot org>
Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:18:00 +0100
Subject: Re: glibc-2.4 changes
References: <42C97D3A.8080608@kegel.com> <20050704215722.GB29838@xi.wantstofly.org> <42C9B1A5.20206@kegel.com> <20050704221744.GA311@xi.wantstofly.org> <1120516154.4474.28.camel@mebius.reciva.com> <20050705101050.GA13741@xi.wantstofly.org>

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 12:10 +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:29:14PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> 
> > > If you think that it'll be easier for people to get patches in now that
> > > stuff has been moved to 'ports', I disagree.
> > 
> > Why do you think that?
> 
> Actually, I've been wondering why you think that it _will_ be easier.

In the case of arm, it is certainly easier (because the port maintainers
can commit changes directly to the ports tree, without needing to get
approval from the glibc core maintainers).  I imagine the situation is
similar for other CPUs.

p.

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Lennert Buytenhek
- Re: glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Lennert Buytenhek
- Re: glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Phil Blundell
- Re: glibc-2.4 changes
  - From: Lennert Buytenhek

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]