<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED --- - udev fails to build with uclibc"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c10">Comment # 10</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED --- - udev fails to build with uclibc"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73729">bug 73729</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com" title="Nico Nelson <nico.nelson-91c8b80@yopmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Nico Nelson</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c8">comment #8</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=73729#c5">comment #5</a>)
>
> > For other libcs please provide a patch, we *might* merge reasonable and
> > simple workarounds, but no ifdefs or re-implementations of glibc functions
> > in our code.
>
> Fair enough.</span >
No. *NOT* fair enough. there's no point sending them patches for compile errors
when they refuse to revert things like their %m change, which gives runtime
errors rather than compile errors.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>