This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Glibc release check-list
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: ams at gnu dot org, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: pasky at suse dot cz, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:42:41 -0500
- Subject: Re: Glibc release check-list
- References: <20091113142845.GS3708@machine.or.cz> <119aab440911130700y3e00672cwfa2c679de89a3eb5@mail.gmail.com> <E1N9FaZ-0008HI-A6@fencepost.gnu.org>
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
> ? The ports repository still needs tagging/branching, but that can come
> ? a little later.
>
> Who actually takes care of that? And when is ports in a state that it
> should be tagged?
I requested that ports tagging be delayed to allow me time to fix
several hppa defects.
Since then I have discovered that the correction of these defects
requires patches to core glibc for cases where the stack grows up (not
down).
Having a fixed ports but a broken glibc core isn't useful, therefore I
no longer oppose the tagging/branching of ports to 2.11.
However, I believe that m68k is also missing a ____longjmp_chk
implementation and that the tagging of ports was being delayed for
this fix. I can't speak for m68k since I don't maintain that machine
architecture.
Regarding the tagging of ports, Daniel Jacobowitz tagged ports for
2.8, but that's all I have in my notes.
Should the ports maintainers have a pow-wow to decide who gets to do
the honours and when?
Cheers,
Carlos.