[Buildroot] [Fwd: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/toolchain/gcc/4.2.1: avr32_patches_break_x86]

[Buildroot] [Fwd: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/toolchain/gcc/4.2.1: avr32_patches_break_x86]

[Nigel Kukard]

Argh ... would it be ok to set the default ML reply-to as the ML? or an
insane proposition from my side? ;)

-N

-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net>
> To: John Voltz <john.voltz@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] svn commit:
> trunk/buildroot/toolchain/gcc/4.2.1: avr32_patches_break_x86
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:29:19 +0000
> 
> > ftp://at91dist:distrib at 81.80.104.162/AT91_Third_Party_Design_Flow/Linux_Host/Source
> 
> Swell ... thanks!
> 
> However they look like the same ones in buildroot  :(  ... not sure how
> far back the corruption goes. I think pre-Oct '07 patchset was working
> when I last tested.
> 
> -N
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/buildroot/attachments/20080321/efe4adcb/attachment.pgp 

[Buildroot] reply-to munging (was) [Fwd: Re: svn commit: trunk/buildroot/toolchain/gcc/4.2.1: avr32_patches_break_x86]

[JS]

On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 17:30 +0000, Nigel Kukard wrote:
> Argh ... would it be ok to set the default ML reply-to as the ML? or an
> insane proposition from my side? ;)

Is 'reply-to munging' against list policy?

-- 
HiPro Solutions
http://hipro.co.in/