Re: glibc alpha patches

[Oliver Falk <oliver at linux-kernel dot at>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 16 January 2009 10:28:56 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
> > > >  For ports I believe the rules do not really differ from the rest of the
> > > > GNU core software, that is GCC, GDB and binutils.  For orphan
> > > > architectures as long as it follows the GNU coding standard, builds and
> > > > passes regression-testing
> > (And is covered by a valid copyright assignment.)
>
> i have one via work for Blackfin work, but i dont think that covers glibc and 
> i think it may only be for stuff that i can say is for Blackfin work ?  
> writing patches for alpha clearly doesnt fall into that category :)

Can someone point me in the right direction? What must a file how?

Thx.

> > > > I can see no reason for a patch not to be
> > > > applied by anyone with the write privilege who happens to have some time
> > > > to spare.  And skilled contributors may become maintainers of such if
> > > > they wish to, like with the pieces mentioned above.  Anyone to disagree?
> > > Do you (Maciej, Mike) know anyone who really knows the answer and someone
> > > with commit access? So we could CC: these people? Else it seems nobody is
> > > going to answer - it seems.
> > At least Roland, myself, and Joseph have write access.  But I don't
> > know anything about Alpha, so I have been reluctant to commit patches
> > I don't understand.
>
> i certainly dont claim to be an alpha expert, but i have access to alpha 
> hardware (personal and through Gentoo) and there are people in Gentoo i can 
> bounce questions off of.

Same is true for me. And I would say if both Gentoo and Fedora sign it 
(and maybe also Debian!?), it should work, right? :-) I guess nobody 
wants to destroy something...

> your reluctance is certainly understandable, but the
> alpha port as it stands today is already broken and needs patches to build let 
> alone actually run properly.  (dont take that statement to mean i think you 
> should be committing these patches because you have write access ... i'm just 
> reiterating the facts)

Copy that!

-of