| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 14 July 2006 04:28, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 23:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Thursday 13 July 2006 04:06, r1 wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> I'm trying to subscribe to the gentoo-arm mailing list but the mail |
| 9 |
>>>> could not be delivered. Is this mailing list alive ? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>> no, i had it killed |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> or Does an |
| 15 |
>>>> new/alternative mailing list talking about arm exist ? |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>> your e-mailing the new list now |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>> Can you please add the list back. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> no, it rarely got traffic |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> This list should not be dealing with native compiles of glibc. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> i dont see why not ... Gentoo embedded is for embedded processors ... so while |
| 29 |
> we highly encourage uClibc, i dont see why we should cock block glibc |
| 30 |
> -mike |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Hi, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> i dont see why not ... Gentoo embedded is for embedded processors ... so while |
| 36 |
> we highly encourage uClibc, i dont see why we should cock block glibc |
| 37 |
> -mike |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I agree that uClibc is focused for embedded system and should be |
| 40 |
preferred to glibc but now some customers prefer glibc on embedded |
| 41 |
system for some psychological reasons (most of them believe that uClibc |
| 42 |
is not enough ready). Furthermore I will not be surprised that we will |
| 43 |
continue to use glibc because NAND/NOR chip memory capabilities are |
| 44 |
growing and for specific mobile products we can now find HDD inside. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
R1. |
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives