<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Burton, Ross <<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com" class="">ross.burton@intel.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 March 2015 at 18:24, Khem Raj <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":4bd" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">Patches are fine in this series, however I just want to set the expectations right here. While having that libc-independent goal is fine.<br class="">
Sometimes we just can not do it, since uclibc or musl<br class="">
does not have all the features that glibc has and an app might also be using it.<br class="">
making glibc users not have those features is unfair<br class="">
given that we have a strong mechanism of overrides in OE, it should be used to this advantage.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But these patches, which add configure options to enable/disable the relevant functionality and have been sent upstream - represent the ideal case as once they're merged won't cost us any effort in the future.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>yes, you might have read the first line in my reply.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Ross </div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>