public inbox for libc-ports@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
@ 2014-04-29  8:20 Carlos O'Donell
  2014-04-29 15:21 ` Joseph S. Myers
  2014-04-30 17:44 ` Roland McGrath
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2014-04-29  8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: GNU C Library, libc-ports, Joseph S. Myers

Joseph,

The hppa port is now in libc.

The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.

The hppa port doesn't depend on any other ports ports 
so no #includes needed adjusting.

The hppa port uses the preferred sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/nptl.

The move ChangeLog entry was added to the top-level ChangeLog
indicating that hppa now uses that top-level ChangeLog.

There are no more ports left in ports.

Is there any other next step (other than fixing 
up more of the hppa port)?

Cheers,
Carlos.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29  8:20 The hppa port is now moved out of ports Carlos O'Donell
@ 2014-04-29 15:21 ` Joseph S. Myers
  2014-04-29 21:29   ` Carlos O'Donell
  2014-04-30 17:44 ` Roland McGrath
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2014-04-29 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> Joseph,
> 
> The hppa port is now in libc.
> 
> The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.

Good ... since I was a bit concerned about any possible effects from the 
removal of trailing whitespace in the long-double-fcts setting (see 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-06/msg00004.html> and 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-05/msg00070.html>).

> Is there any other next step (other than fixing 
> up more of the hppa port)?

Well, removing ports/README, leaving the directory containing just 
ChangeLog files.  But, yes, fixing all the hppa issues from 
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> (all of which except the 
bits needing checking against the ABIs of old binaries should be very 
quick to fix).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29 15:21 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2014-04-29 21:29   ` Carlos O'Donell
  2014-04-29 21:46     ` Joseph S. Myers
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2014-04-29 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On 04/29/2014 11:20 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> Joseph,
>>
>> The hppa port is now in libc.
>>
>> The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.
> 
> Good ... since I was a bit concerned about any possible effects from the 
> removal of trailing whitespace in the long-double-fcts setting (see 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-06/msg00004.html> and 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-05/msg00070.html>).

The disassembly is identical given some local patches I still have
and still get applied to gentoo and debian.

In practice it only matters that long-double-fcts is equal to exactly
"yes", but "no" or "no " is never used anywhere to make lists of
functions or ojbects or anything of that nature.
 
>> Is there any other next step (other than fixing 
>> up more of the hppa port)?
> 
> Well, removing ports/README, leaving the directory containing just 
> ChangeLog files.  But, yes, fixing all the hppa issues from 
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> (all of which except the 
> bits needing checking against the ABIs of old binaries should be very 
> quick to fix).

Done. I've removed README, and updated all ChangeLog.* for machines
which were moved to libc proper with the normal header you were
using. I've carried out the final update to ports/ChangeLog to
indicate README is removed and ports is no longer in use.

Please feel free to add stronger wording or another README that
says "Not in use." I think we're done with the source tree.

I have updated the website to say:

* New port discussions should be on libc-alpha.

* Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
  need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.

* After the 2.19 release the ports add-on was merged back into
  core project and is no longer used.

Cheers,
Carlos.
 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29 21:29   ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2014-04-29 21:46     ` Joseph S. Myers
  2014-04-29 21:58       ` Carlos O'Donell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2014-04-29 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.

I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person 
suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating 
all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and 
update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the 
patch that only updates some ports.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29 21:46     ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2014-04-29 21:58       ` Carlos O'Donell
  2014-04-29 22:07         ` Joseph S. Myers
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2014-04-29 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
> 
> I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person 
> suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating 
> all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and 
> update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the 
> patch that only updates some ports.

So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?

Once I answer that question I can go back and update the website
with the correct information.

Cheers,
Carlos.


 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29 21:58       ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2014-04-29 22:07         ` Joseph S. Myers
  2014-04-29 22:35           ` Carlos O'Donell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2014-04-29 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > 
> >> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
> >>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
> > 
> > I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person 
> > suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating 
> > all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and 
> > update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the 
> > patch that only updates some ports.
> 
> So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?

I believe we decided to stop using libc-ports altogether.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29 22:07         ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2014-04-29 22:35           ` Carlos O'Donell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2014-04-29 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports

On 04/29/2014 06:07 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>>>>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
>>>
>>> I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person 
>>> suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating 
>>> all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and 
>>> update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the 
>>> patch that only updates some ports.
>>
>> So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?
> 
> I believe we decided to stop using libc-ports altogether.

You have a better memory than I so I trust that.

The website has been updated to reflect this.

Thanks for the review.

Cheers,
Carlos.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-29  8:20 The hppa port is now moved out of ports Carlos O'Donell
  2014-04-29 15:21 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2014-04-30 17:44 ` Roland McGrath
  2014-04-30 17:46   ` Carlos O'Donell
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Roland McGrath @ 2014-04-30 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports, Joseph S. Myers

I've added some deprecation header text to the ports/ChangeLog* files that
lacked it.  I've then moved ports/ChangeLog* to ChangeLog.old-ports* so
that there is no longer a ports/ subdirectory at all.  Huzzah.

I think we should now discontinue use of the libc-ports mailing list.
The mailing list configuration should be left around at least as much
as is required to keep the archives accessible on the web.  Beyond
that, I think we should now ask overseers to change it either so that
mailing libc-ports bounces or so that libc-ports just redirects to
libc-alpha.  Objections?


Thanks,
Roland

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.
  2014-04-30 17:44 ` Roland McGrath
@ 2014-04-30 17:46   ` Carlos O'Donell
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2014-04-30 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roland McGrath; +Cc: GNU C Library, libc-ports, Joseph S. Myers

On 04/30/2014 01:44 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I've added some deprecation header text to the ports/ChangeLog* files that
> lacked it.  I've then moved ports/ChangeLog* to ChangeLog.old-ports* so
> that there is no longer a ports/ subdirectory at all.  Huzzah.
> 
> I think we should now discontinue use of the libc-ports mailing list.
> The mailing list configuration should be left around at least as much
> as is required to keep the archives accessible on the web.  Beyond
> that, I think we should now ask overseers to change it either so that
> mailing libc-ports bounces or so that libc-ports just redirects to
> libc-alpha.  Objections?

No objections from me.

The website is already updated to indicate libc-ports is now historical
like libc-hacker.

Cheers,
Carlos.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-04-30 17:46 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-04-29  8:20 The hppa port is now moved out of ports Carlos O'Donell
2014-04-29 15:21 ` Joseph S. Myers
2014-04-29 21:29   ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-04-29 21:46     ` Joseph S. Myers
2014-04-29 21:58       ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-04-29 22:07         ` Joseph S. Myers
2014-04-29 22:35           ` Carlos O'Donell
2014-04-30 17:44 ` Roland McGrath
2014-04-30 17:46   ` Carlos O'Donell

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).