Re: Glibc-ports status? Creating glibc-ports tarball for 2.13?

[Guy Martin <gmsoft at tuxicoman dot be>]

> > It sure would be nice if we could avoid patching nearly identical
> > headers in nearly identical ways for each architecture...
> 
> Yes, this is quite lame. Guy Martin was working on a patch for glibc
> core, but this was rejected by Ulrich. It was my hope that Guy would
> instead rework the patch for libc-ports, allowing all the ports to
> share similar headers.

I actually tried this approach. Altho my patch wasn't the best, Joseph
made it clear that a -port only patch isn't feasible.

His comment :
"Putting a file directly in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/socket.h in
ports also seems rather fragile; it causes the installed headers to
depend on whether the ports add-on is used or not, and for the sake of
multilib configurations such as a Power Architecture compiler
supporting both hard-float (libc) and soft-float (ports) libraries it's
desirable to avoid such differences within the same target architecture
even when it has both libc and ports variants.  As such, I don't think
it makes sense to try to change this without libc buy-in (the same
issue of different O_* values affects SPARC, it's not just a ports
issue)."
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2010-08/msg00027.html


I've then sent a patch following his recommandations but it was
dismissed :
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2010-08/msg00082.html


Regards,
  Guy