From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-52424-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29048 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2014 11:23:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 29033 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2014 11:23:35 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: newmailhub.uq.edu.au
Message-ID: <53FC6E2C.3070900@archlinux.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:23:00 -0000
From: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com>
CC: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.1] __gconv_translit_find: Actually append ".so" to
 module name [BZ #17187]
References: <53CD0F15.3030806@redhat.com> <53F62D4F.3040702@redhat.com> <20140826063513.GB26743@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <53FC58D8.8060409@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FC58D8.8060409@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UQ-FilterTime: 1409052206
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2

On 26/08/14 19:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 08:35 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 
>> I think this fix is fine (except a minor nit below), but it would be
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> good if another maintainer also verifies that it won't break anything.
>> Also, Allan needs to ack it for 2.20.  I am going to put the patch in
>> rawhide today anyway, so I'll report back if there are any issues; I
>> don't expect any though.
> 
> Okay, I will reword the comment.
> 
> Allan, is this okay for 2.20/current master?
> 

I'd like the "if another maintainer also verifies that it won't break
anything" to be enacted.  My best guess is that it is fine and given
there is an exploit it should go in, but I am not confident enough about
lack of side effects.

Can someone else give this an ack?  Roland, Carlos, Joseph, etc?

Once that is done, it is fine to commit to master.

Allan