From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-38989-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 27663 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2005 21:50:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 27645 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2005 21:50:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Mar 2005 21:50:13 -0000
Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201)
	id 1A0AF13C335; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:50:13 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:50:13 -0500
Resent-Message-ID: <20050321215013.GA18284@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Resent-To: binutils@sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:01:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: uclibc patches
Message-ID: <20050321214923.GA18005@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503190148360.14102-100000@lnx.bridge.intra> <423D6A3E.6030909@redhat.com> <200503201949.59388.vapier@gentoo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200503201949.59388.vapier@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00639.txt.bz2

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:49:59PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Sunday 20 March 2005 07:19 am, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> > Would patches to add support for tuple
>> > arch-*-linux-uclibc*
>> > be acceptable?
>>
>> Yes - provided that the copyright holder for the patches has a binutils
>> FSF copyright assignment in place, or if the patches are small enough
>> and simple enough to qualify as obvious.
>
>basically every place you see '-linux-gnu*', add a similar '-linux-uclibc*' 
>match ... files that we're talking about here:
>bfd/config.bfd
>bfd/configure.in
>gas/configure.in
>gas/configure.tgt
>ld/configure.tgt
>ld/emultempl/elf32.em
>
>find attached patches for these files

Perhaps it is politically incorrect to suggest this, but wouldn't it
make sense to just allow -linux-* rather than add a bunch of
linux-uclibc's everywhere?

cgf