This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- From: Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: Joe Taylor <joe at tensilica dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:43:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- Organization: Tensilica, Inc.
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> All these non-mainstream architectures will from now on have to live in
> add-ons. We plan to add some magic to the main configure file to allow
> add-ons provide the base_machine/machine definitions but that's it.
> Everything else can be handled in add-ons. So, just reorganize your
> code to have to appropriate structure and, for the time being, provide a
> little patch to the main configure file. Then distribute the add-on
> from your side.
Is this a new policy? The current glibc sources certainly contain a number of
ports that I would consider "non-mainstream". Are they going to be removed in
future releases? Who decides when an architecture becomes mainstream? Can you
explain how this works?
I'm just feeling surprised to hear this. The FSF seems to encourage the
contribution of new ports to various GNU projects, and the GCC and Binutils
projects have welcomed the addition of Xtensa ports. (We're hoping to
contribute our GDB port soon, too.) Judging from the FSF's insistence on
copyright assignments for GNU projects, I would think they would not like the
idea of having separate add-ons for which they cannot enforce the GPL (since an
add-on distributed by a 3rd party won't require a copyright assignment to the FSF).
What is the motivation for wanting to keep new ports as add-ons? It seems like
everyone benefits from collaborating on a single source base. I'm sure Joe is
willing to maintain the Xtensa port of glibc, so there should be minimal effort
required by the core glibc developers, especially since the port-specific code
can be so nicely separated. Xtensa users and partners will certainly prefer to
have the Xtensa port included in the main glibc sources. Why do you want to
reject contributions for new architectures?
I'd appreciate whatever explanations you can provide, and I hope you will
reconsider this decision. I've been really looking forward to getting our glibc
port contributed -- it's disappointing to hear that it might not happen :-(
--Bob