Re: lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86
Evgeni Golov <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:17:44 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
>> >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?
>> You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know...
>The patch for what?
>For the *_MASK defines FTBFS? Thats the task of the maintainer.
>For updating to lrmi 0.10? Maybe.
>For incorporating the fixes from v86d? Wasnt able to incorporate them
>to the actual libx86 as v86d used 0.10 as base.
Whichever of the above you were planning to put in any forked version
and are applicable to distributions other than Debian. I'm happy to
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org