Remaining machine status updates for 2.19

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Allan McRae wrote:

> > As I said in <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00340.html>, 
> > I don't think this is a sensible organization of the release page - I 
> > think there should be just one status section for each architecture.
> 
> That seems reasonable - I missed that message.  Feel free to just record
> the information there.  But we still need some information on the
> compiler used.

I've added more details (with reference to libgcc patches needed) to the 
2.19 page, and reworked the generic 
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/X.Y> into the form I think is 
more appropriate.

I think it's up to architecture maintainers to what extent to include 
separate headings for ABI variants in the architecture list on the 
Release/X.Y page, versus having a single header that encompasses multiple 
ABIs with the entries under that heading describing the variation between 
ABIs (as well as variation between kernel versions, GCC versions, 
subarchitecture variants, etc.).

Note that I don't think waiting for architecture status should block the 
release - remind people it's missing, but one point of having a month for 
the freeze is that it's plenty of time for maintainers to test on their 
architectures, and if they don't test in that time I don't think we should 
wait longer in order for them to test.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com