This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Glibc-ports status? Creating glibc-ports tarball for 2.13?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org, "Ryan S. Arnold" <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Philip Blundell <philb at gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: Glibc-ports status? Creating glibc-ports tarball for 2.13?
- References: <4D59305D.7040605@codesourcery.com>
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Status?
> =======
>
> What is the status of all the machines in glibc-ports with respect to
> the glibc-2.13 tag in libc-ports?
>
> Alpha - Richard?
> ARM - Joseph/Phil?
> HPPA - Carlos (myself): Does not build, missing patches.
> M68K - AS?
> MIPS - Joseph/AJ?
> Power - Ryan?
As far as I know, ARM, M68K, MIPS and Power are up to date with all
relevant libc changes.
> (a) Create a tarball from the current glibc-2.13 tag. Even if your
> machine doesn't build against the upstream glibc-2.13 tarball, it's a
> common place for packagers to start.
>
> (b) Ask glibc-ports maintainers to chekin any lingering patches.
> Create a new "glibc-2.13.1" release with some cherry-picks, and create
> a tarball from *that* tag name for both glibc and glibc-ports.
Yes, that seems logical. Sometimes libc release branches get new symbols
in bits/ headers cherry-picked to them, in which case the corresponding
ports changes should also be cherry-picked to those branches. And of
course ports changes to bring ports up to date with libc 2.13 will need to
go on master and 2.13 branch in any case.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com