This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: What is glibc-ports?


On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@systemhalted.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:37:48 -0400
>
>> * Some day in the future we move all machines into ports/ leaving
>> generic code outside of ports. If ports is good enough for ARM it's
>> good enough for everything else, and using ports/ day-to-day will
>> ensure it doesn't bit-rot.
>
> I frankly think that ARM and MIPS should be just put back into the
> main tree as first-order targets.
>
> If they are important and maintained, I don't see any other reasonable
> course of action.
>
> The IA64s, the HPPAs, and the M68Ks will always be around to keep
> the ports infrastructure tested properly :-)

That's the problem though.

Moving a machine from one directory into the other depending on the
status of maintenance is annoying.

The status of maintenance should be documented somewhere and should
impact *process* not layout in our source tree.

I fully admit HPPA is a second-tier supported machine and that it
should *never* impact a release process.

Why do we need to maintain a second repo for this?

Security from the ne'er-do-well maintaining second-tier machines?

I don't see a good argument for a second repository, it just
complicates the release process.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]