bug-binutils@gnu.org

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:38:11PM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:14:41PM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> >On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> >> > My cvs build from a few days ago has bug-binutils@gnu.org listed as
>> >> > the bug reporting address.  If bug-binutils@gnu.org is no longer the
>> >> > working contact address listed for the tools, could a change to the
>> >> > replacement address be made?
>> >>
>> >> This is a delicate issue, because the FSF insists that the
>> >> bug-binutils address be the official bug reporting address.
>> >
>> >IIRC bug-binutils just forwards to bug-gnu-utils, one way or
>> >another.  Perhaps it is simple to make it forward to
>
>By "it" (forward) I mean forwarding bug-binutils, not
>bug-gnu-utils.
>
>Does that change your comments?  If not, read on.
>
>> >binutils@sources.redhat.com?  Or to binutils@sourceware.org if
>> >the vendor name is an issue?
>>
>> I don't see how that would be extremely useful since replies would end
>> up here and not in bug-gnu-utils.
>
>(Why should bug-binutils answers better go to bug-gnu-utils
>rather than here?)
>
>>  Also, the non-binutils email wouldn't
>> really be appropriate here.
>
>(I was referring to bug-binutils, so I think there'd only be
>binutils-email. ;-)

The only way I know of to link the two lists is to subscribe binutils
sources redhat com to bug-gnu-utils since there is no actual
bug-binutils list.  I suppose you could get a gnu.org sysadmin to
forward only the bug-binutils mail here but it seems like you'd trip
over the same political problems that always come from trying to use
this site.  And, as I said, there is no guarantee that a reply to
a message in binutils would go back to bug-binutils.