This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: FYI, GIT mirror of glibc's cvs repository
Roland McGrath wrote:
I agree. At the moment it's easier to edit the sourceware page. I don't
have a clue what I have to do to edit the gnu.org page.
As I told you, it's via Savannah. Don't ask me how to make a Savannah
account work this year. But once you do, I'll approve you for the libc
project and then you can commit web pages to cvs as they are done for all
gnu.org project pages.
I was being facetious. I have a Savannah account, and as far as can
tell, I need to become a "libc" projects member. As a member I can
modify the webpages in cvs. I've sent in my request for inclusion in the
The sourceware page is simple and keeps a nice trivial look.
It just talks about the resources on sourceware for hackers.
The gnu.org page is the official GNU face of the GNU C Library.
It follows the www.gnu.org look and feel, and reflects the GNU
Project's message and priorities. That page's first mandate is
to explain what glibc is about to an unfamiliar user, and direct
people who want to use it, are using it, or want to hack on it,
to the information they need.
Mike makes a good point. Why have two sites at all? We should be able to
put all this information on a single site. The site would have separate
pages for different contexts e.g. new users, developers, news, etc.
The benefits of one site include only needing to direct users at one
site, and only updating one site.
It's fine to consolidate some information and have one site's pages
point to pages on the other for the kind of information that's
appropriate to each site.
Like gcc, is there any reason we couldn't acquire "http://glibc.gnu.org"
to use as a centralized site, pointing all other sites there?
(650) 331-3385 x716