This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:40:03 +0000
- Subject: Re: Kill libc-ports?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130905121121 dot GN4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
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.
Maybe if we move all ports directly into libc (well, remove am33 first,
given that the person who volunteered to maintain it never posted revised
patches after
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2012-06/msg00066.html>), leaving the
ports directory containing only old ChangeLogs, we could then establish a
policy that routine mechanical changes do update all architectures and
that most architecture changes do go on libc-alpha, leaving libc-ports as
just the low-volume list for drawing architecture maintainer attention to
those changes where all architectures can't be updated so mechanically,
like the crt*.S changes (or where testing on a range of architectures is
sought for a patch). (That would then cover all architectures rather than
just an arbitrary subset.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com