Moving ports architectures to libc?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:12:37PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > The aim is that it's obvious in search results (preferably default 
> > results, though you can customize columns) which bugs are 
> > architecture-specific, and what architecture they are specific to.  Hence 
> > the suggestion of [arm] at the start of bug descriptions.
> 
> I think there may be ways to configure the title to have additional
> text based on attributes of the bug.  But I agree that having the arch
> mentioned in the title (regardless of whether we end up having an arch
> attribute for bugs) would be useful.

Do you then agree with moving bugs for ports architectures to components 
such as "libc" and "math" when those architectures move out of ports (and 
ensuring the bugs are appropriate tagged)?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com