Tagging ports for 2.12

Tagging ports for 2.12

[Joseph S. Myers]

Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12 when libc 
is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power soft-float and M68K are 
up-to-date with libc changes; is there anything the HPPA or Alpha 
maintainers want to get in before the branch?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12 when libc
> is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power soft-float and M68K are
> up-to-date with libc changes; is there anything the HPPA or Alpha
> maintainers want to get in before the branch?
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com

Yeah, it'd be nice to move some patches we've been carrying in Gentoo
into ports once and for all. I'll clean them up and send them tonight.
Might save Mike some time and headaches in the future. :)

And by the way, I'm not too concerned with something breaking the
alpha port, since it's been in pretty bad shape for a while now. Worst
case is that Gentoo adds a fifteenth alpha-related patch. ;)

Thanks,
Matt

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12 when libc
> is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power soft-float and M68K are
> up-to-date with libc changes; is there anything the HPPA or Alpha
> maintainers want to get in before the branch?

There is nothing I want to get onto the branch for HPPA. Thanks.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 530 bytes --]

On Monday 03 May 2010 19:58:10 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12 when libc
> is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power soft-float and M68K are
> up-to-date with libc changes; is there anything the HPPA or Alpha
> maintainers want to get in before the branch?

let's do it so Alfred can roll tarballs for glibc and the ports addon :)

Carlos: the news section of sourceware.org/glibc doesnt seem to be backed by 
wiki, so could you post the 2.12 info ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12
   > when libc is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power
   > soft-float and M68K are up-to-date with libc changes; is there
   > anything the HPPA or Alpha maintainers want to get in before the
   > branch?

   let's do it so Alfred can roll tarballs for glibc and the ports
   addon :)

I was under the (wrong?) impression that the libc maintainers would
roll the tarballs for glibc.  But I can roll one this weekend if so
requested.

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

On Tuesday 11 May 2010 16:18:18 Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    > Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12
>    > when libc is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power
>    > soft-float and M68K are up-to-date with libc changes; is there
>    > anything the HPPA or Alpha maintainers want to get in before the
>    > branch?
> 
>    let's do it so Alfred can roll tarballs for glibc and the ports
>    addon :)
> 
> I was under the (wrong?) impression that the libc maintainers would
> roll the tarballs for glibc.

afaik, drepper could care less.  i dont know about Roland.  should i be 
bugging him instead ?

> But I can roll one this weekend if so
> requested.

the ftp doesnt have anything atm ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 6 May 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Monday 03 May 2010 19:58:10 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Does anyone have a reason not to tag and branch ports for 2.12 when libc
> > is branched?  As far as I know, ARM, MIPS, Power soft-float and M68K are
> > up-to-date with libc changes; is there anything the HPPA or Alpha
> > maintainers want to get in before the branch?
> 
> let's do it so Alfred can roll tarballs for glibc and the ports addon :)

I've now tagged 2.12 for ports.  It will be branched once libc has 
branched.

http://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-cvs/2010-q2/msg00121.html

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Tagging ports for 2.12

[Roland McGrath]

What I'd hoped is that by this cycle we'd have a 2.12 branch maintainer
stepping forward at release time and not only after the fact, and that
branch maintainers would take on the responsibility of doing tarballs
and GNU release procedures.