This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Joe Taylor <joe at tensilica dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:34:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200405112249.i4BMnuaj011920@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Thanks Roland.
And some more answers:
Yes, I intend to remove ports, make them available once as add-ons.
The Linux/Cris port is a perfect example. The author dumped the code
once in glibc and that was it. He probably thought we take care of
maintenance. Now it's completely rotten.
Other ports are AIX, Irix, Solaris, BSDs, and the various Unixware
variants. None of them is maintained. The code can move into add-ons
and if somebody does have interest s/he can pick up the code and
maintain it.
And no, argumentation like "but this is not how project X works" won't
be accepted. This is project X's problem, not ours. If the maintainers
of said project are willing to take on the extra burden this is their
decision.
The costs of new ports must be paid by those who benefit from it. And I
reject any argument that this makes some ports second-class. In fact,
they are better supported since the extra step of getting the patches
approved by me or somebody else falls away which makes the official code
more easily and faster available. I don't comment on the code quality
of those ports; if they suffer because the glibc maintainers don't
review the changes that's is a problem. But it so far has only been
prevent at the cost of the glibc maintainers without *any* payback.
This is exactly why the add-on approach is needed.
--
â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â