This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Remaining machine status updates for 2.19
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, <rth at redhat dot com>, <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>, <david dot holsgrove at xilinx dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 01:16:26 +0000
- Subject: Re: Remaining machine status updates for 2.19
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52F02F4A dot 1040706 at archlinux dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402040016190 dot 3754 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <52F036DB dot 4010905 at archlinux dot org>
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Allan McRae wrote:
> > As I said in <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00340.html>,
> > I don't think this is a sensible organization of the release page - I
> > think there should be just one status section for each architecture.
>
> That seems reasonable - I missed that message. Feel free to just record
> the information there. But we still need some information on the
> compiler used.
I've added more details (with reference to libgcc patches needed) to the
2.19 page, and reworked the generic
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/X.Y> into the form I think is
more appropriate.
I think it's up to architecture maintainers to what extent to include
separate headings for ABI variants in the architecture list on the
Release/X.Y page, versus having a single header that encompasses multiple
ABIs with the entries under that heading describing the variation between
ABIs (as well as variation between kernel versions, GCC versions,
subarchitecture variants, etc.).
Note that I don't think waiting for architecture status should block the
release - remind people it's missing, but one point of having a month for
the freeze is that it's plenty of time for maintainers to test on their
architectures, and if they don't test in that time I don't think we should
wait longer in order for them to test.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com