Hello,
While trying to use jackd on a ARM926 I get a runtime error caused by
the missing clock_nanosleep symbol. After having verified that the
clock_nanosleep syscall is present into the kernel, I cam to the
conclusion that the librt from uclibc simply lack the clock_nanosleep()
declaration. So
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:22:44PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
That sure needs a lot of other patches pulled in to apply. Doesn't seem
like 0.9.30.3 material unfortunately. I guess the new busybox 1.16.0
simply won't be working with uClibc 0.9.30.x.
At least there is hope that someday the
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 07:01:05PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
During the weekend I've been pondering to release master as 0.9.31 now
(without NPTL), branch it so we can cleanup master after the NPTL merge.
In my mind this would be the best approach:
.plan is now:
tag 0.9.30.3
Lennart == Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:
Hi,
Lennart Sounds good to me. Certainly as far as coldfire is concerned,
Lennart the master works fine, while the 0.9.30 branch is broken. The
Lennart signal cleanup in master also seems useful to newer versions
Lennart of
Hi,
uClibc master is frozen in preparation of 0.9.31.
The only (non-documentation) changes that may be made are changes that
fix bugs or add new ports which do not require changes to other parts of
the library. New functionality may not be introduced during this period.
Known bugs that would be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:04:11PM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
Lennart == Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca writes:
Hi,
Lennart Sounds good to me. Certainly as far as coldfire is concerned,
Lennart the master works fine, while the 0.9.30 branch is broken. The
Lennart
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:22:44PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
That sure needs a lot of other patches pulled in to apply. Doesn't seem
like 0.9.30.3 material unfortunately. I guess the new busybox 1.16.0
Twas brillig at 14:19:10 03.03.2010 UTC-08 when raj.k...@gmail.com did gyre and
gimble:
KR I would like to propose that we have a longer RC period and stabilize
KR master after merging nptl.
Uhm, another 3-4 years?
KR 1. There is enough interest base who want it and they will still have
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net wrote:
Twas brillig at 14:19:10 03.03.2010 UTC-08 when raj.k...@gmail.com did gyre
and gimble:
KR I would like to propose that we have a longer RC period and stabilize
KR master after merging nptl.
Uhm, another 3-4
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:45:18PM +0100, Pirmin Walthert wrote:
Busybox 0.16.0 works great for me with 0.9.30.2 on x86 (Geode LX and
Quad Xeon)
OK, so then it's just m68k having issues. Less of a problem then, and
given the master branch works fine, it probably isn't worth looking
into
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:44:38PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
Because efforts would be spend on releasing .31 and merging/ creating
another RC immediately after
will divide the efforts.
I would like a release that works on m68k. The current master tree does.
So why wait for NPTL?
Now if NPTL can
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
uClibc master is frozen in preparation of 0.9.31.
That was good news! Congratulations!
Is NPTL planned to go in there?
The only (non-documentation) changes that may be made are changes that
fix bugs
12 matches
Mail list logo
