Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Downgrading glibc?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:32:44
Message-Id: 20110211233712.69f67446@halo.gateway.2wire.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Downgrading glibc? by "Diego Elio Pettenò"
1 On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:24:14 +0100
2 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
5 > scritto:
6 > >
7 > > But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
8 > > rather old.
9 > > While the source code isn't that large a problem for Gentoo, existing
10 > > binaries
11 > > without source code still are.
12 >
13 > Beside flash what else is involved for now? We can decide that once
14 > that's defined.
15
16 There's a patch for flash. Skype is broken.
17 Tracker: https://bugs.gentoo.org/353816
18
19
20 --
21 fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
22 toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
23 @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Downgrading glibc? Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>