From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [87.193.137.78] (helo=mail.extern.dresearch.de) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mvszl-00022U-AK for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:25:28 +0200 Received: from consult.extern.dresearch.de (consult.extern.DResearch.DE [87.193.137.68]) by mail.extern.dresearch.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9758216DEDF for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hiob.intern.dresearch.de (unknown [87.193.137.50]) by consult.extern.dresearch.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53ECE2A4266 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:24:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.32.10.2]) by hiob.intern.dresearch.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:26:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4ACDE7EB.3000805@dresearch.de> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:23:55 +0200 From: Steffen Sledz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <20091008125302.GE10797@xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20091008125302.GE10797@xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2009 13:26:03.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2654E40:01CA481A] X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 87.193.137.78 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sledz@DResearch.DE X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Revert Request for linux -> linux-gnu changes X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:25:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Graeme Gregory wrote: > But it is becoming clear that the linux -> linux-gnu change is throwing > up many issues for arches != linux-gnueabi. Partial fixes have been > implemented but for every fix another issue seems to pop up. > > I suggest these changes should be reverted, placed in a branch and > properly merged at a later date after proper review. +1