This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Kill libc-ports?
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 23:25:56 +0530
- Subject: Re: Kill libc-ports?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130905121121 dot GN4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309051534260 dot 28271 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130906052150 dot GS4306 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309061227310 dot 3054 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 6 September 2013 18:08, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I suggest that libc-alpha is much too high-volume for most architecture
> maintainers to follow it in a low-latency manner to update their ports for
> global changes.
A maximum of a couple of dozen emails a day doesn't count as high
volume IMO. Heck, there are days when the mailing list is deserted.
> Of course, your choice of audience for your proposal excludes all the
> people for whom libc-ports is most useful. It would be more polite to ask
> the people on libc-ports *first* rather than proposing behind their backs
> to eliminate their mailing list.
I definitely did not mean to try and push a proposal behind anyone's
backs. I assumed that all arch maintainers read libc-alpha - it's
unfortunate if someone doesn't because it implies that they do not
accept any accountability for the generic bits in glibc.
> Certainly when the mechanism was to follow glibc-cvs and reverse-engineer
> all the commits to work out what needed architecture maintainer action, I
> know other architecture maintainers found it useful when I identified and
> described on libc-ports what the changes needed were, and the results of
> that reverse-engineering.
Again, I would expect arch maintainers to at least keep a passive eye
on libc-alpha to gauge if there are changes that could be relevant to
their architecture, so that if someone fails to inform them of the
change, they could spot it themselves.
> My suggestion is that libc-ports would be for all architectures (where
> architecture maintainer action is needed) rather than just for some
> subset.
... which is a step in the wrong direction IMO.
> The presence of the separate ports directory actually causes problems -
> encouraging people to patch only a subset of architectures, confusing
> people looking for particular architectures and expecting them in sysdeps.
> The mailing list is much less problematic.
I don't disagree with that. I only said that the ports directory move
and mailing list policies do not have any dependency on each other.
Siddhesh
--
http://siddhesh.in