From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:13:24 -0700 Received: from u-97.karlsruhe.ipdial.viaginterkom.de ([62.180.10.97]:32522 "EHLO u-97.karlsruhe.ipdial.viaginterkom.de") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:13:13 -0700 Received: (ralf@lappi) by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:12:57 +0200 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:12:57 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Jay Carlson Cc: Jay Carlson , linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Message-ID: <20001014181257.C6499@bacchus.dhis.org> References: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from nop@nop.com on Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:11:39PM -0400 X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing 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. Ralf