From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3982 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2012 11:02:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 3937 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2012 11:02:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 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; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:02:34 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Sf7ou-0003nJ-Q8 from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:02:32 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:02:31 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1Sf7os-0005uy-5O; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:02:30 +0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:02:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Roland McGrath cc: Carlos O'Donell , libc-ports@sourceware.org, libc-alpha Subject: Re: Request for help: Fix building tarballs for ports add-on. In-Reply-To: <20120614002303.57D642C08B@topped-with-meat.com> Message-ID: References: <4FD92B99.3050605@mentor.com> <20120614002303.57D642C08B@topped-with-meat.com> 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Roland McGrath wrote: > I've been thinking that right after 2.16 will be a good time to consolidate > the repositories (just the initial step, making it ports/ under the libc > tree). We'll need to work out if that comes with any change to expectations regarding what people update in global changes. (My presumption would be that people would still be expected to identify when a change requires corresponding ports changes, but not necessarily to make those changes themselves - and if any architecture moves out of the ports subdirectory, and so is then expected to be included in future global changes, that should only happen if the architecture is believed to be up to date with such changes at the time of the move.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com