From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:54 -0700 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net ([24.147.1.144]:58564 "EHLO chmls06.mediaone.net") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:44 -0700 Received: from decoy (h00a0cc39f081.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.248.129]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA08616; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jay Carlson" To: "Ralf Baechle" , "Jay Carlson" Cc: , Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:11:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing [don't you hate it when you remember something you wanted to ask right after you hit send?] Ralf Baechle writes: > 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. Jay From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jay Carlson" Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:11:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20001014170928.B6499@bacchus.dhis.org> 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: <20001014161139.vUHd8miAEew0_9Dy8HnmfGz2qtuOcPSHgoRMO2AZ5Po@z> [don't you hate it when you remember something you wanted to ask right after you hit send?] Ralf Baechle writes: > 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. Jay