This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Moving ports architectures to libc?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:22:10 +0000
- Subject: Re: Moving ports architectures to libc?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401212254020 dot 25161 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401250256210 dot 16529 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140127040439 dot GB2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401271806180 dot 8452 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140128042927 dot GG2149 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
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