Archives
Archives
| From: | "Diego Elio Pettenò" <flameeyes@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Downgrading glibc? | ||
| Date: | Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:26:03 | ||
| Message-Id: | 1297437854.2150.8.camel@raven.home.flameeyes.eu | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Downgrading glibc? by Michael Haubenwallner |
||
| 1 | Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha |
| 2 | scritto: |
| 3 | > |
| 4 | > But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are |
| 5 | > rather old. |
| 6 | > While the source code isn't that large a problem for Gentoo, existing |
| 7 | > binaries |
| 8 | > without source code still are. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | Beside flash what else is involved for now? We can decide that once |
| 11 | that's defined. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | -- |
| 14 | Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 15 | http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| [gentoo-dev] Re: Downgrading glibc? | Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Downgrading glibc? | Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o> |