This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Clean up glibc manual references to "GNU system" (bug 6911)
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Robert Millan wrote:
> > There is no such policy (beyond the requirements that supported systems
> > use ELF, support TLS, etc.), but to keep the code simple we may avoid
> > conditionals that are not relevant to any port currently in libc or ports
> > - hence the recommendation is to submit the libc changes at the same time
> > as the port itself, so we can see the full context and judge what the best
> > approach is for a portability issue.
> I might have been mistaken then. How do we proceed with that? Send a
> full patch with all sysdep additions?
Presuming you have a working version of the port based on current git
master (and which is clean in terms of having been cleaned up for all
recent global changes, so far as they apply to any files in the port):
* Send the port itself as a patch or patches to libc-ports (depending on
the size, it may need to be split up into multiple messages; I'm not sure
what the message size limit is for the list), with appropriate explanation
of any choices you made you think need explanation. Confirm that you are
willing to act as maintainer for the port.
* Send the libc changes required to libc-alpha, each change in a separate
message with a meaningful subject and explanation of the rationale for the
If you think some issue is best addressed by a libc change, then address
it by a libc change, not by a kludge in the port, and explain in the
submission of the libc change why you think that is the best approach.
We're trying to reduce duplication in sysdeps directories (see my recent
series of changes splitting parts of some <sys/*.h> headers into separate
<bits/*.h> headers so that the <sys/*.h> headers don't need duplicating
for different Linux architectures, for example).
Obviously I'm assuming the port is fully assigned to the FSF, as is
generally required for all new glibc submissions.
Joseph S. Myers