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 t
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
> unmaintaine
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/BP7LYYNGQA2DDTNFNS3EJXX3AGNZRN
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?
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
&
g:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531
> >
> > where fesco voted to disallow static linking to dietlibc but deferred the
> > question of linking to dietlibc at all.
> >
> > On that question, I would tend to agree with patrice'
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
t; where fesco voted to disallow static linking to dietlibc but deferred the
> question of linking to dietlibc at all.
>
> On that question, I would tend to agree with patrice's email that we've
> moved towards certain core systems being too core to let people use an
> altern
5.
> >>http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/dietlibc.git/log/?ofs=150
> >>
> >>If what you say is correct, that would mean it was already retired and he
> >>resurrected it.
> >
> >I must admit that I've forgotten what review procedure had be
gt; The package was actually imported by Enrico in 2005.
>>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/**cgit/dietlibc.git/log/?ofs=150<http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/dietlibc.git/log/?ofs=150>
>>>
>>> If what you say is correct, that would mean it was already retired and he
>>>
otten 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 remembers the details?
I just found this:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg
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
dmit 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 remembers the details?
--
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.9-201.fc18.x86_
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
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
Hi,
due to the Enrico Scholz saga, I realized that we have 4 packages in Rawhide
which BuildRequire dietlibc:
dhcp-forwarder-0:0.10-1902.fc19.src
ip-sentinel-0:0.12-1901.fc19.src
kismet-0:0.0.2011.03.R2-1603.fc18.src
util-vserver-0:0.30.215+svn2929-1603.fc18.src
There are 2 things that strike
16 matches
Mail list logo
