| 1 |
On Thursday 29 July 2004 08:12 am, Natanael Copa wrote: |
| 2 |
> Is there a database or something over appllications that won't compile |
| 3 |
> with uclibc? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Where can I contribute with bugreports? bugzilla? If I patch, how do I |
| 6 |
> do this so I don't break the standard glibc tings? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
right now we just have this list ... i wouldnt suggest filing bug reports just |
| 9 |
yet since technically, you can build all this uclibc stuff with the state of |
| 10 |
the current tree ... |
| 11 |
plus, there's only about two devs working on this setup atm ... we dont have |
| 12 |
resources to develop & debug at the same time just yet ;) |
| 13 |
if you find bugs and have patches, by all means send them to this list :) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
as for breaking standard glibc things, i'm not sure what you mean by that ... |
| 16 |
this stage tarball is meant to never have glibc installed in it ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> What about a new "arch" - x86uclibc? Sorry if you already have discussed |
| 19 |
> this. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
solar and i have actually been pounding on this detail the last few days |
| 22 |
-mike |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives