This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc/DEC Alpha questions
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 04:50:07PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Hi Aurelien,
> Hi,
>
>> I guess you're about as close to a glibc/Alpha maintainer as exists
>> now. I hope that since Debian is dropping Alpha that you won't stop
>> your work. We could use your help.
>
> Unfortunately I have very few interests for Alpha, I only worked on it
> because it was one of the Debian supported architecture.
That's what I was afraid of.
>> I've gotten your patch from this bug report [0] into Gentoo's glibc
>> ebuild, but it still is not in the main glibc tree.
>>
>> I've filed a Gentoo bug about your fdatasync patch [1], but I'm not
>> sure it's OK, since it touches parts outside of the alpha specific
>> areas. Could you clarify this patch?
>
> alpha had no fdatasync syscall before 2.6.22 (kernel development on
> alpha is mostly dead, so it is lacking behind other architectures).
> This patch therefore tries to call the fdatasync syscall and if it
> doesn't exist, it call the fsync one. On architectures that are known
> to have a fdatasync syscall, only fdatasync is called.
>
> Note that the patch in bugzilla has a minor issue that causes the
> testsuite to fail on arm with this patch, you should use this version
> instead:
>
> http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/eglibc/2.10.1-0exp2/alpha/submitted-fdatasync.diff
Excellent thanks.
>> You also filed this bug [2]; It looks pretty trivial, so this is good.
>>
>> I'm also seeing a build failure in 2.10.1. I've filed a bug here [3].
>> Anything you can do to help here I'd really appreciate.
>
> You probably want this patch:
>
> http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/eglibc/2.10.1-0exp2/alpha/submitted-includes.diff
>
>
>> In the long term, what do I need to do to get changes for Alpha into
>> glibc? Set up my own git tree and send pull requests?
>
> It's probably the best way (I have been successful once using this
> method), but it's not easy either. The glibc maintainers are reluctant
> to do that if there is no official alpha porter.
Yes, I've noticed. What I don't understand is that if Gentoo and
Debian are the only consumers of the Alpha glibc port which has no
acting maintainer, then why is so difficult to get changes submitted?
If we screw something up in the alpha port, it will affect only _us_.
I guess I'll set up that git repo.
Matt