From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23425 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2012 09:43:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 23356 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2012 09:43:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:43:03 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SMFnS-0006io-Kq from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:43:02 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:43:00 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1SMFnR-0007oV-4o; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:43:01 +0000 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:43:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Mike Frysinger cc: libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips: use $dir for path to ldd-rewrite.sed In-Reply-To: <201204221139.48947.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: References: <1334800292-31025-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <201204221139.48947.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 18 April 2012 21:51:32 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > The $dest variable is based on the top build dir but we need the ldd > > rewrite variable to be based on the top source dir, so use $dir. > > at this point, i don't know what the status of this patch is, so i'm just > going to let the mips maintainer merge/whatever. I already said it was OK if my analysis of the variables involved was correct - and, separately, that the patch submission ought to have contained more information (which is a point to take account of in future patch submissions for other patches). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com