Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: migration from uclibc to uclibc-ng

2016-07-16 Thread waltdnes
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 01:02:42PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote > I welcome comment on any of the above. I don't know if this is on topic. Is it possible to backport 64-bit date/time to uclibc-ng in 32-bit mode? 32-bit date runs between late 1901 and early 2038. 2038 is not that far away.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: migration from uclibc to uclibc-ng

2016-07-16 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
The fact that uclibc/busybox/buildroot websites have been down for the last several days doesn't hurt your case here...

[gentoo-dev] RFC: migration from uclibc to uclibc-ng

2016-07-16 Thread Anthony G. Basile
Hi everyone, Most of you know that uclibc upstream is pretty much dead. There hasn't been a official release since 2012 and there hasn't been a commit to their master branch for over a year. The situation has become impossible since important fixes really can't be backported without layers of in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signed push & clock drift rejection

2016-07-16 Thread Andrew Savchenko
Hi, On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:03:30 + Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Hi all, > > In tracing down problems with the git->rsync path, it has been noticed > that some developers have significant clock drift on their local systems > (up to one case of 14 days wrong), and it's potentially contributing to