On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > > Op 7 jun 2011, om 19:43 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: >>> Ping? >> >> Both changes are fine. >> >> change from being machine specific is futuristic it will not work for >> all architectures that >> uclibc supports but is sufficient for what we support/use in oe for now. > > If uclibc is *really* machine specific then everything that links against it > should be machine specific as well. Since, as you say, the current configs > are rather generic we should make that clear by making uclibc stop pretending > to be machine specific. >
intention is to break that machine dependency if any. Since it used kconfig like kernel many things like tune options and some workarounds creeped in, uclibc is intended to be made clear of those and be machine independent thats why I am ok with this patch > regards, > > Koen > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
