From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4631 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 21:58:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4607 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 21:58:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:58:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3TLw5gs015448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:58:05 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.56] (ovpn-113-56.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.56]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3TLw4Pc025833; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:58:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5360206C.3040500@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:58:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: GNU C Library , "libc-ports@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports. References: <535F60AC.4050702@redhat.com> <536019AC.1000602@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 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 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.