[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Patches] Any remaining uses of option groups?

On Jun 26, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> But then, if option groups are only used for releases maybe they should be 
>> literally "a patch maintained on top of glibc" - something maintained in 
>> the Yocto context, updated once each release cycle (with appropriate 
> As further evidence in support of this approach (of removing option groups 
> from the EGLIBC repository and leaving those who care about them to 
> maintain a patch separately), it has come to my attention that Yocto has 
> various patches to fix build problems with some option groups disabled, 
> which have not as far as I know been submitted to this list in a form that 
> can be applied to trunk, as well as a version of Steve Longerbeam's 
> patches related to option group configuration, where no-one has shown any 
> interest in getting the patches in a form ready to go into EGLIBC as per 
> <http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01049.html>.
> As a general principle, glibc distributors who care about a feature that 
> is broken need to submit their patches to the appropriate upstream, 
> otherwise the brokenness may be considered evidence of lack of interest in 
> the feature.  And more generally distributors should be (ensuring 
> copyright assignments are completed and) working with upstream on getting 
> in desired features, and avoiding having local patches unnecessarily 
> long-term.

Yes, I have had this on my things to-do list for long since 2.17 was released. I have now cleaned them
up on top of trunk and would be sending them to the list very soon after some
testing on various architectures.

> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Patches mailing list
> Patches@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://eglibc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/patches

Patches mailing list