From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [202.173.155.195] (helo=birgitte.twibble.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gafir-0000Nx-DN for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:46:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by birgitte.twibble.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3742022163 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:39:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from birgitte.twibble.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (birgitte [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06776-08 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:39:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from nynaeve.twibble.org (nynaeve.twibble.org [202.173.155.194]) by birgitte.twibble.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DF31289C for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:39:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by nynaeve.twibble.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0C83313AD473; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:39:33 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:39:32 +1000 From: Jamie Lenehan To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20061019213932.GA30714@twibble.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jamie Lenehan , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd at twibble.org Subject: Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev glibc: drop 2.4, since it is confirmed to be nonworking on arm X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Linux Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:46:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:45:21PM +0200, "koen commit" wrote: > glibc: drop 2.4, since it is confirmed to be nonworking on arm Hmm, was this really necessary? Surely marking it broken for arm would have been enough for now? I'm sure I'm not the only one running glibc 2.4 on lots of non-arm devices and now have to either add glibc 2.4 back in to OE locally and/or get all my devices upgraded (which will happen, once I've finished testing with glibc 2.5, no other glibc's build here except 2.4 and 2.5.) And I'm sure there'll be a lot of people wondering why OE is suddenly building an older version of glibc. -- Jamie Lenehan