Status of backport at bugzilla

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 21-09-2013 18:21, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> Hi, there are few 2.15 backports at bugzilla, they lose relevance with
> time so we should check their status.
>
> I made list by searching bugzilla for 'backport'. What we will do with these?
>
> 14343  [2.15] Function logb() in math.h produces incorrect results for small inputs 	2013-03-20
> 14033  [2.15] <bits/math-finite.h> references non-existing *l_finite symbols on double-only ports 	2013-03-20
> 14284  [2.15 backport] Fix invalid memory access in do_lookup_x. 	2013-02-19
> 14599  [Linux/SPARC] libm_pic.a linking failure 	2012-12-03
> 14287  Backport RPC header patch from master 	2012-12-03
> 13690  pthread_mutex_unlock potentially cause invalid access 	2012-12-03
> 13765  [2.15 backport] Make fmtmsg() function thread-safe 	2012-12-03
> 14668  [2.15 backport] Don't parse %s format argument as multibyte string 	2012-12-03
> 13773  [2.15 backport] Call __fxstatat64 from faccessat() to avoid PLT in -Os builds 	2012-06-28
> 13756  [2.15 backport] Sort objects before relocations 		2012-06-28
> 14041  getcontext@GLIBC_2.3.3 missing from libc 		2012-06-27
> 13902  [2.15 backport] Fix confstr use of local buffer outside its extent. 	2012-06-27
> 13755  [2.15 backport] Do not cache negative results in nscd if these are transient 	2012-06-27
>
I checked in glibc wiki and page and looks like we don't have any policy
regarding backport/mantainer policy. So I guess it will be a release maintainer
decision, in this case Carlos O'Donnell.

Should we create a policy regarding how we maintain, hw many releases (maybe
based on time)?