Re: Re: dietlibc

2013-05-08 Thread Jon Ciesla
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Frank Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:56:59AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > >On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann <[1] > fedora-de...@tuxad.de> > >wrote: > > Hello, > > I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc

Re: Re: dietlibc

2013-05-08 Thread Frank Bergmann
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:56:59AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: >On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann <[1]fedora-de...@tuxad.de> >wrote: > Hello, > I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be > unmaintained. > > ([2]http://mm3test.fedora

Re: Re: dietlibc

2013-05-08 Thread Jon Ciesla
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Frank Bergmann wrote: > Hello, > > I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be > unmaintained. > ( > http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/de...@mm3test.fedoraproject.org/thread/BP7LYYNGQA2DDTNFNS3EJXX3AGNZRNAX/ > ) > > What's t

Re: Re: dietlibc

2013-05-08 Thread Frank Bergmann
Hello, I freshly subscribed this list after reading that dietlibc seems to be unmaintained. (http://mm3test.fedoraproject.org/hyperkitty/list/de...@mm3test.fedoraproject.org/thread/BP7LYYNGQA2DDTNFNS3EJXX3AGNZRNAX/) What's the current status of dietlibc in Fedora and how can it be checked? Last b

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-04 Thread Jon Ciesla
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jon Ciesla wrote: > > I see no reason not to keep dietlibc around for development use, but I'd > > rather see packages use glibc. > > We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to > comply with the packaging guideline

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-04 Thread Jon Ciesla
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > > I recalled this set of issues too from my previous time in fesco but I > > didn't find the meeting logs with the information. I did find this > meeting > > log: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
Jon Ciesla wrote: > I see no reason not to keep dietlibc around for development use, but I'd > rather see packages use glibc. We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to comply with the packaging guidelines and best practices, i.e.: * Shared library build needs to be e

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Bill Nottingham
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > I recalled this set of issues too from my previous time in fesco but I > didn't find the meeting logs with the information. I did find this meeting > log: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531 > > where fesco voted to

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:53:19AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:46:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > >>Matthew Miller wrote: > >>>Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the > >>>boot portion

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Jon Ciesla
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:46:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >> Matthew Miller wrote: >>> Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the boot porti

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:46:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Matthew Miller wrote: Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the boot portion of Anaconda onto floppy disks. If the things you list are really the only things

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Patrice Dumas
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:20:24AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > I must admit that I've forgotten what review procedure had been used > in 2005. Only have found this odd thread: > > RFE: dietlibc review > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00683.html > > Who r

Re: dietlibc

2013-03-01 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:46:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the > > boot portion of Anaconda onto floppy disks. If the things you list are > > really the only things using it, I think it's time to retire

Re: dietlibc

2013-02-28 Thread Kevin Kofler
Matthew Miller wrote: > Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the > boot portion of Anaconda onto floppy disks. If the things you list are > really the only things using it, I think it's time to retire it > completely. The package was actually imported by Enrico in

Re: dietlibc

2013-02-28 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:07:13PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > (Do we really need a second libc in Fedora?). Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze the boot portion of Anaconda onto floppy disks. If the things you list are really the only things using it, I think it