From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:02:09 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] uclibc: reinstate support for version 0.9.31 In-Reply-To: References: <1376997241-20991-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> <20130826163209.71188312@skate> Message-ID: <20130827100209.4759e82f@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Simon Dawson, On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:41:16 +0100, Simon Dawson wrote: > On 26 August 2013 15:32, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > > You said: > > > > ""unfortunately, > > while uClibc 0.9.33.x does build for avr32, the result is a root > > filesystem with unusably-slow runtime performance. > > "" > > > > Then maybe we should make 0.9.31 the only possible uClibc version for > > AVR32 ? > > Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Should that be done in a separate patch? Probably yes, but it's not a strong opinion. > >> diff --git a/package/connman/Config.in b/package/connman/Config.in > >> index 0853941..22f3b9f 100644 > >> --- a/package/connman/Config.in > >> +++ b/package/connman/Config.in > >> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_CONNMAN > >> select BR2_PACKAGE_LIBGLIB2 > >> select BR2_PACKAGE_IPTABLES > >> select BR2_PACKAGE_GNUTLS > >> - depends on !BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_32 > >> + depends on !(BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_31 || BR2_UCLIBC_VERSION_0_9_32) > > > > Maybe it was inotify that was missing, but I see you've backported the > > inotify support in 0.9.31. Or it was something else than inotify? > > I don't quite follow your meaning here... Are you referring to the > connman package specifically? Yes, I was referring to the connman package specifically. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com