tor 2011-09-08 klockan 12:31 +0100 skrev Peter Robinson:
I agree. Most of the discussion in this thread seems to be based upon
opinion not raw facts. Alot of the prelink stuff seems to come down to
certain preferences or use case. I think we should follow upstream,
its not like it can't be
Here comes a little status update from a fellow Fedora developer working
on the hardfp bootstrap.
The hardfp bootstrap is progressing quite well with currently
3857 packages built (stage4)
2063 packages left to build
both counted in number of source packages.
However, there have been som
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:36:57 +0100, Peter Robinson
pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey All,
I know it was discussed a while ago how the USB storage on
PandaBoards
was slow, not sure what the resolution was but saw this article on
LWN
that looks like our problem there for those that might
Peter Robinson wrote:
Hey All,
I know it was discussed a while ago how the USB storage on PandaBoards
was slow, not sure what the resolution was but saw this article on LWN
that looks like our problem there for those that might not have seen
the post elsewhere and are interested.
Hey! Thanks for sending this!
--
Sent from my phone - message formatted and/or shortened accordingly.
-Original Message-
From: Henrik Nordstr?m [hen...@henriknordstrom.net]
Received: Friday, 09 Sep 2011, 3:00
To: arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: [fedora-arm] Fedora 15 ARM hardfp
Hello,
This patch definitely provides a significant improvement :
1
http://www.trimslice.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29t=218start=0
Best Regards,
Guillaume FORTAINE
gforta...@gfortaine.biz
+33(0)631.092.519
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:36:57 +0100
From:
fre 2011-09-09 klockan 12:36 +0100 skrev Peter Robinson:
I know it was discussed a while ago how the USB storage on PandaBoards
was slow, not sure what the resolution was but saw this article on LWN
that looks like our problem there for those that might not have seen
the post elsewhere and
fre 2011-09-09 klockan 16:08 -0400 skrev Jonathan Masters:
Only thing I would add is that we had been just adding arm1 (no period) to
NV*R* (release bit). I don't object rootfs your suggestion but we should
standardize. Opinions?
To follow sane naming guidelines there need to be a period at
