This is the mail archive of the
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?