On 05/02/2012 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Right. So then, the question is where we stand with GLIBC, Carlos?
>
> It's going through Mentor's build/test cycle right now with the new
> gcc patch and a re
On 05/02/2012 01:38 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 00:39:37 -0400
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2012 12:15 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope
>>&g
On 05/02/2012 12:15 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>>>> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> Hey everyon
On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
>> before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
>
> Hi Jon.
Hey everyone,
Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
Jon.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/
On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> * is similar to /lib/ld-x86-64.so.2
> * keeps the libraries and loader in the same directory
> * doesn't invent a new /libhf directory
> * is easier to implement in GLIBC
> * is architecture
Hi Steve,
Please ensure Jakub on our end is involved in the meeting. We discussed
compromise solutions that are acceptable to him and Dennis today and I
would like him to be involved in the discussion. He is on CET, but
cannot make calls after 10pm UTC. I prefer that we try to have this on
Friday,
Steve,
Can you make sure the Mentor folks are invited to the party on the glibc
end? Suggest sending this to one of the main glibc lists.
Jon.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 04/10/2012 12:38 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> his point is you can't install multiple architectures into the same root.
>> alpha, arm oabi, and m32r for example have ldso set to /lib/ld-linux.so.2. a
>> quick grep of GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in gcc's config
On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
>>> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good
>>
On 03/31/2012 12:04 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>> I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change. AFAIK
>> we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard of it, we
>> have moved everything from /
On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change. AFAIK
> we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard of it, we
> have moved everything from /bin /lib /lib64 to under /usr in Fedora 17.
> we do have symlinks to the ori
On 03/31/2012 12:52 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
> decisions and discussions to be made.
So the purpose of discussing it there was twofold:
1). To debate what the preferred single unified path would be - it's ARM
specific, it m
13 matches
Mail list logo
