This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Thursday 15 January 2009 06:11:50 Oliver Falk wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 January 2009 05:17:27 Oliver Falk wrote: > >> I have a few alpha patches for glibc alpha. I've attached 'em. > >> > >> Since there's no glibc alpha maintainer (any more) and alpha has been > >> moved to ports, nobody seems to be interested in commiting those. > >> > >> Do you see any chance for me to make this process a bit more simple? > > > > if no one is going to be alpha maintainer, then i wonder if we could rule > > by community ;) > > No, not rule by community. That's not what I meant. I was wondering, if > someone with appropriate rights could commit 'em. but there isnt a maintainer and i dont think anyone with commit privs will apply patches. i dont even really know what being a maintainer requires (docs doesnt seem to cover this). > > at any rate, your dl_support patch is wrong. see the one i wrote instead: > > http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/glibc/2.9/6018_all_alpha-g > >libc-2.8-cache-shape.patch?rev=1.1 > > Not totally wrong. :-) But yes, your patch is more correct. fair enough > Mike. You have the same problem as I/we have, right? Or don't you mind > that your patches are not in upstream cvs? i dont think distros should have to maintain out of tree patches -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |