This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PowerPC LE configury
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:21:47 -0500
- Subject: Re: PowerPC LE configury
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130809050118 dot GG3294 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20130830232101 dot 0FAEF2C060 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130916055932 dot GA15467 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20130924230825 dot EFE462C099 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130928110037 dot GD30589 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20131001180641 dot AF1C02C08E at topped-with-meat dot com>
- Reply-to: munroesj at us dot ibm dot com
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 11:06 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:08:25PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > That has some of the essential characteristics of what I want to see,
> > > but details like the abilist variable are too kludgey.
> > >
> > > I think it makes most sense to first follow through with the ideas Joseph
> > > and I discussed previously about revamping shlib-versions. Then the new
> > > scheme for abilist files will be a straightforward derivation of that.
> >
> > Please reconsider. You're asking me to implement changes to the build
> > machinery that affect all targets. That really is the purview of a
> > build or global maintainer. While I might be able to do the work
> > you're asking of me, I know how this dance goes. Invariably the poor
> > schmuck (that'd be me) who is asked to implement some maintainer's
> > vision for the future gets it all wrong. After some spins around the
> > review loop, the maintainer is left wondering why he didn't just
> > implement the feature himself.
>
> I was certainly not asking you to implement this all by yourself.
> My reply was not just for you, but for the whole group. I'm sorry
> that was not clear. I mean that we collectively should follow
> through with the plans we already tacitly agreed upon. Of course,
> the more people pitch in, the sooner it will actually get done. It
> is the case that I am holding up this bit of your port-specific
> changes for a pending piece of generic build infrastructure change,
> so in that sense an "unfair" burden falls on you. Sorry, but we
> have to draw the line somewhere or else we just accumulate more
> difficult-to-maintain cruft forever and the build infrastructure
> improvements never happen. This gives you motivation to harangue
> the rest of us to prioritize that work.
>
We are against some hard deadlines and can not take the time now to
address your issue. Can we agree to accept Alan patch as is now for a
promise to pitch in on the general solution later?