Re: How to submit large patch for xtensa-linux?

[Bob Wilson <bwilson at tensilica dot com>]

Hi H.J.,

I agree with you that obsoleting unmaintained ports is a good thing.  I just 
want to clarify that we intend to keep the Xtensa port of glibc well-maintained. 
 The question of what to do with unmaintained ports seems like a separate issue 
than whether new ports with active maintainers will be accepted.

I appreciate the responses from Roland and Ulrich to my earlier questions.  I 
think I will have some follow-up questions soon....  Thanks for replying so quickly!

--Bob

H. J. Lu wrote:
> Ulrich has been doing a superb job maintaining glibc. I don't think
> anyone can ask him to do more. I support not to include any ports
> without an active maintainer. Gcc and gdb have the similar issues. They
> are obsoleting non-active targets. I think glibc should start obsoleting
> ports without an active maintainer. Each major release should list
> tested, working targets and mark those untested being obsoleted. Those
> marked will be obsoleted in the next major releae.
>
> Glibc needs more active developers. I think glibc should consider a
> policy similar to what gcc, gdb, binutils have. Glibc shouldn't accept
> a new port without a maintainer. I hope we won't rush to a decision
> which may not help the development of glibc unintentionally.
>
> H.J.