This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Alexandre Oliva as SH co-maintainer
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>,amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:27:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: Alexandre Oliva as SH co-maintainer
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0202052257190.96898-100000@dair.pair.com> <m3g04fasrz.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com> <orr8nyii7b.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:22:16PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2002, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Hans-Peter, Hi Alexandre
> >> I'd like to propose Alexandre Oliva as SH co-maintainer.
> >>
> >> I think his knowledge, long-term incentive and deep involvement
> >> with the SH toolchain would help improve patch submission
> >> response and stuff. AFAIK, Joern hasn't been responsive lately,
> >> and I feel I'm not responsive enough too, so another
> >> co-maintainer would certainly help.
> >>
> >> And his mail client deals with MIME parts not as attachments. ;-)
> >>
> >> Alexandre has agreed, if I now interpret
> >> "I absolutely wouldn't mind :)" correctly. :-)
>
> > Then let it be so.
>
> > Alexandre - please add yourself to the maintainers list.
>
> Thanks, I'm checking in the patch below. Thanks for the invitation,
> H-P :-)
>
> Now, I understand this means I can install the patches for sh64-elf
> without waiting for approval from Hans or Jörn, but how about explicit
> approval from Daniel to get it into 2.12? I'm still looking into the
Well, right now (i.e. before we create the branch - which I was
planning to do two days ago but I am waiting for <stdbool.h> to settle)
you don't need anything from me. And overall, these patches seem
fairly trustworthy. I'd say, go right ahead and put them in, but keep
investigating the differences. We'll have probably at least a month
after branching anyway.
> differences in the SH-Linux kernel and glibc that I got after
> installing my patches, but I still couldn't figure out why their sizes
> differ. Could it possibly be just because the pathnames of the
> patched build were longer, even though no debugging info should be
> making it to the binaries, as far as I can tell?
Interesting... which sections have different sizes?
>
> Index: binutils/ChangeLog
> from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
>
> * MAINTAINERS: Added self as SH co-maintainer.
>
> Index: binutils/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/binutils/MAINTAINERS,v
> retrieving revision 1.32
> diff -u -p -r1.32 MAINTAINERS
> --- binutils/MAINTAINERS 2002/01/14 17:49:29 1.32
> +++ binutils/MAINTAINERS 2002/02/06 18:18:22
> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ responsibility among the other maintaine
> s390, s390x Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> SH Jörn Rennecke <amylaar@onetel.net.uk>
> SH Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>
> + SH Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
> SPARC Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
> TIC54X Timothy Wall <twall@alum.mit.edu>
> z8k Christian Groessler <cpg@aladdin.de>
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
> CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer