Re: Moving ports architectures to libc?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

One thing I failed to consider in my proposal: what do we do with the 
"ports" Bugzilla component?

It's useful to be able to distinguish architecture-specific bugs from 
others, and whether the "host" field is filled out in Bugzilla isn't much 
indication of whether the bug is architecture-specific (rather, it's 
likely to indicate the architecture of the original submitter).  
Possibilities include:

* Just move all ports bugs (for architectures moved into libc) into other 
components such as "libc", "nptl", "math", but ensure the description 
starts [arm] or similar, so it's immediately visible in bug lists that 
these are architecture-specific, and that the "host" field is filled out 
as well.  On the whole I prefer this option.  ldbl-128ibm bugs can be 
marked [ldbl-128ibm] rather than [powerpc], as a more logically meaningful 
indication of the relevant feature.  Of course such tags should be added 
for existing architecture-specific bugs for libc architectures.

* Move all architecture-specific bugs, for whatever architecture, into 
"ports".

* Add components port-arm, port-i386, etc., and put architecture-specific 
bugs in those.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com