From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6314 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 22:35:05 -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 6295 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 22:35:04 -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 22:35:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3TMZ0C1020721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:35:00 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.56] (ovpn-113-56.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.56]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3TMZ0Ae022516; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:35:00 -0400 Message-ID: <53602914.6080209@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:35:00 -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> <5360206C.3040500@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/msg00014.txt.bz2 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 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.