This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi, On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> wrote: > All, > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 23:37:38 Allan Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:22, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote: >> > I completely disagree here. These local changes still have to be >> > extracted to patches, and these patches have to be put into the >> > proper places. If ct-ng would take it's sources from git, all one >> > needs to do is to change the ref name. > > OK, just a quick jump-in, now... > > When I build a toolchain, what I *do* want is for the toolchain to be > based on _upstream_, and know what changes _I_ am doing to these. > no, I'm sorry, you do not know what change your toolchains have. Take glibc 2.10.1. I _do_ challenge you to assure me you did a full review the 57 different patch currently applied, totalizing +867 lines, -282 lines, spread over 123 unique files. Take glibc 2.9, same story, +458 lines, -264 lines, over 91 unique files. Both comments said "vampirize patches from gentoo". Even if I was trusting you, I am not trusting gentoo -> I am not trusting the glibc you are shipping. - Arnaud -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |