Kill libc-ports?

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:40:03PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > 
> > > Do we still need the libc-ports mailing list?  I figured we could all
> > > just work on libc-alpha.  We're aiming at getting rid of the ports
> > > directory anyway, and this seems like an easy step.
> > 
> > I believe it is still useful to have a lower-volume list for drawing 
> > architecture maintainers' attention to cases where a patch has only 
> > updated some architectures and they need to make corresponding updates to 
> > their architectures.
> 
> Couldn't we just do this with tags in the email subject:
> 
> [all-arch]
> [s390][ppc]
> 
> The ports distinction is artificial, in that the 'primary'
> architectures are still discussed on the main list.

It's rather amusing that all of the "primary" archs except x86[_64]
are dinosaurs and all the ones with modern relevance are relegated to
ports...

Rich