On Sat, 2023-11-11 at 23:52:21 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 08:36:16PM +, Wookey wrote:
> >It was being used internally/developmentally for a while (at CISCO)
> >but, as you observe, only with large kernel and toolchain
> >patches. Various groups dragged their feet on
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 06:57:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> While scanning the libc-alpha list recently I read [M] that arm64ilp32
> was never upstreamed in Linux nor glibc? If so, I think there's little
> point in carrying the arch definitions in dpkg, and I guess that would
> not make the cu
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 08:36:16PM +, Wookey wrote:
>On 2023-11-11 18:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp3
On 2023-11-11 18:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive
> > > at this point?
> >
> > Not t
Hi!
On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive
> > at this point?
>
> Not that I have seen. I didn't think anything other than the IXP eve
5 matches
Mail list logo
