From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-52429-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5193 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2014 14:33:28 -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 5181 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2014 14:33:27 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Message-ID: <53FC9AB0.6020400@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:33:00 -0000
From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>, 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> <53FC6E2C.3070900@archlinux.org>
In-Reply-To: <53FC6E2C.3070900@archlinux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2

On 08/26/2014 07:23 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> 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.

I'm reviewing.

c.