From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:20:14 -0700 Received: from ltc.ltc.com ([38.149.17.171]:38921 "HELO ltc.com") by oss.sgi.com with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:20:01 -0700 Received: from gw1.ltc.com (gw1.ltc.com [38.149.17.163]) by ltc.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.afdd) with ESMTP id da314239 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:25:43 -0400 Message-ID: <005601c035fa$e4b13a10$0701010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" To: "Ralf Baechle" , "Jay Carlson" Cc: , References: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> <20001014181257.C6499@bacchus.dhis.org> Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:22:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralf Baechle" To: "Jay Carlson" Cc: "Jay Carlson" ; ; Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:12 PM Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... > On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:11:39PM -0400, Jay Carlson wrote: > > > > Actually I'm trying to kill this entire naming problem by getting all > > > patches back to the respective maintainers. Result: no pending patches > > > for cvs binutils, only tiny ones for glibc-current and egcs-current. > > > > What's going to happen to glibc 2.0.6? I suspect the embedded people are > > going to be stuck using it until we figure out how to trim down the binary > > size of 2.2. > > Which why I guess we still have to maintain it for a while or even come > up with some alternative small libc. I am fine with using 2.0.6 for a long time, at least until some markedly superior option is available. Regards, Brad From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <005601c035fa$e4b13a10$0701010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" References: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> <20001014181257.C6499@bacchus.dhis.org> Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:22:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Return-Path: To: Ralf Baechle , Jay Carlson Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20001014162205.hhYddBiFHGVjelrpTaKhoX6_x3lMHYSeoKMWwCIZFpo@z> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralf Baechle" To: "Jay Carlson" Cc: "Jay Carlson" ; ; Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:12 PM Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... > On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:11:39PM -0400, Jay Carlson wrote: > > > > Actually I'm trying to kill this entire naming problem by getting all > > > patches back to the respective maintainers. Result: no pending patches > > > for cvs binutils, only tiny ones for glibc-current and egcs-current. > > > > What's going to happen to glibc 2.0.6? I suspect the embedded people are > > going to be stuck using it until we figure out how to trim down the binary > > size of 2.2. > > Which why I guess we still have to maintain it for a while or even come > up with some alternative small libc. I am fine with using 2.0.6 for a long time, at least until some markedly superior option is available. Regards, Brad