Closed 3246251196 closed 1 year ago
On 24 October 2022 23:09:06 CEST, rjd324 @.***> wrote:
A shot in the dark. Please let me know if you would accept this at all, and if you would but dislike the implementation, then please advise.
The idea is fine for me, I just need to find some time to review it. Thanks for your contribution.
Can you please squash the patches a little bit (e.g., the last one with the first one)?
Hey, when you say squash you mean you would prefer a single commit?
Not exactly. But if you revise one of the patches later, you could just apply for those patches a single one. I.e., 05d9f97 can be squashed with first one.
You have the ability to squash all of these into 1 if you accept the PR. I guess you want me to squash them because it is easier for you to review?
If this is something I have to do for you to consider the PR, then I will do it. Otherwise, I will not. Please let me know your preference, and I will act.
Btw, if it makes it easier I can remove this PR and start a fresh one with more atomic changes. Normally I do that, but this one kind of expanded into both allowing experimental CLIB2 and also not building COREUTILS: both optionally.
On 17 November 2022 17:30:29 CET, rjd324 @.***> wrote:
Btw, if it makes it easier I can remove this PR and start a fresh one with more atomic changes. Normally I do that, but this one kind of expanded into both allowing experimental CLIB2 and also not building COREUTILS: both optionally.
Yes, this is a good idea!
Removing this PR to create a simpler more atomic one(s).
A shot in the dark. Please let me know if you would accept this at all, and if you would but dislike the implementation, then please advise.
The defaults are as they stand today: the "stable" CLIB2 with the same git hash as existing. But, the ability to enable afxgroup clib2.
Also, the ability not to build coreutils for those who just want the compiler/binutils.