This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 01:41:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: Kill libc-ports?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130905121121 dot GN4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309051534260 dot 28271 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130906052150 dot GS4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:40:03PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >
> > > Do we still need the libc-ports mailing list? I figured we could all
> > > just work on libc-alpha. We're aiming at getting rid of the ports
> > > directory anyway, and this seems like an easy step.
> >
> > I believe it is still useful to have a lower-volume list for drawing
> > architecture maintainers' attention to cases where a patch has only
> > updated some architectures and they need to make corresponding updates to
> > their architectures.
>
> Couldn't we just do this with tags in the email subject:
>
> [all-arch]
> [s390][ppc]
>
> The ports distinction is artificial, in that the 'primary'
> architectures are still discussed on the main list.
It's rather amusing that all of the "primary" archs except x86[_64]
are dinosaurs and all the ones with modern relevance are relegated to
ports...
Rich