On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Stephen R. Marenka wrote:
>
> On Sun, November 29, 2009 6:59 pm, fth...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
>
> > That's why I'm interested in etch-m68k (glibc-2.3.6) buildds. I don't
> > see any role for glibc-2.5 in the process of updating to a tool chain
> > based on eglibc-2.
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:32:20 -0600 (CST), "Stephen R. Marenka"
wrote:
> The other problem with etch-m68k is that we can't make changes to that
> distribution any more. It sounds like we should bootstrap sid's
toolchain
> (and friends) starting with etch-m68k.
Erm, well, that was basically my int
On Sun, November 29, 2009 6:59 pm, fth...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
> That's why I'm interested in etch-m68k (glibc-2.3.6) buildds. I don't see
> any role for glibc-2.5 in the process of updating to a tool chain based on
> eglibc-2.10, binutils-2.19.51, gcc-4.4.1, linux-2.6.31. So I don't see an
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:10:29PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Brad Boyer wrote:
> > Just as a note, I never saw the original message come across the mailing
> > list. Also, you might want to include linux-m...@lists.linux-m68k.org on
> > this sort of topic.
>
> I think that
4 matches
Mail list logo
