The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Carlos O'Donell-6
Joseph,

The hppa port is now in libc.

The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.

The hppa port doesn't depend on any other ports ports
so no #includes needed adjusting.

The hppa port uses the preferred sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/nptl.

The move ChangeLog entry was added to the top-level ChangeLog
indicating that hppa now uses that top-level ChangeLog.

There are no more ports left in ports.

Is there any other next step (other than fixing
up more of the hppa port)?

Cheers,
Carlos.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Joseph Myers
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> Joseph,
>
> The hppa port is now in libc.
>
> The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.

Good ... since I was a bit concerned about any possible effects from the
removal of trailing whitespace in the long-double-fcts setting (see
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-06/msg00004.html> and
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-05/msg00070.html>).

> Is there any other next step (other than fixing
> up more of the hppa port)?

Well, removing ports/README, leaving the directory containing just
ChangeLog files.  But, yes, fixing all the hppa issues from
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> (all of which except the
bits needing checking against the ABIs of old binaries should be very
quick to fix).

--
Joseph S. Myers
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Carlos O'Donell-6
On 04/29/2014 11:20 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> Joseph,
>>
>> The hppa port is now in libc.
>>
>> The disassembly of the shared libraries appears identical.
>
> Good ... since I was a bit concerned about any possible effects from the
> removal of trailing whitespace in the long-double-fcts setting (see
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-06/msg00004.html> and
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-05/msg00070.html>).

The disassembly is identical given some local patches I still have
and still get applied to gentoo and debian.

In practice it only matters that long-double-fcts is equal to exactly
"yes", but "no" or "no " is never used anywhere to make lists of
functions or ojbects or anything of that nature.
 
>> Is there any other next step (other than fixing
>> up more of the hppa port)?
>
> Well, removing ports/README, leaving the directory containing just
> ChangeLog files.  But, yes, fixing all the hppa issues from
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> (all of which except the
> bits needing checking against the ABIs of old binaries should be very
> quick to fix).

Done. I've removed README, and updated all ChangeLog.* for machines
which were moved to libc proper with the normal header you were
using. I've carried out the final update to ports/ChangeLog to
indicate README is removed and ports is no longer in use.

Please feel free to add stronger wording or another README that
says "Not in use." I think we're done with the source tree.

I have updated the website to say:

* New port discussions should be on libc-alpha.

* Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
  need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.

* After the 2.19 release the ports add-on was merged back into
  core project and is no longer used.

Cheers,
Carlos.
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Joseph Myers
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.

I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person
suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating
all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and
update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the
patch that only updates some ports.

--
Joseph S. Myers
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Carlos O'Donell-6
On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
>
> I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person
> suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating
> all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and
> update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the
> patch that only updates some ports.

So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?

Once I answer that question I can go back and update the website
with the correct information.

Cheers,
Carlos.


 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Joseph Myers
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >
> >> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
> >>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
> >
> > I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person
> > suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating
> > all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and
> > update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the
> > patch that only updates some ports.
>
> So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?

I believe we decided to stop using libc-ports altogether.

--
Joseph S. Myers
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Carlos O'Donell-6
On 04/29/2014 06:07 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> On 04/29/2014 05:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Use libc-ports to highlight cross-port issues so maintainers
>>>>   need not pay close attention to libc-alpha.
>>>
>>> I thought the conclusion was not to do that (that I was the only person
>>> suggesting repurposing libc-ports like that), but developers not updating
>>> all ports have the responsibility to draw attention to that fact and
>>> update <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus> when checking in the
>>> patch that only updates some ports.
>>
>> So what did we decide we were going to do with libc-ports?
>
> I believe we decided to stop using libc-ports altogether.

You have a better memory than I so I trust that.

The website has been updated to reflect this.

Thanks for the review.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Roland McGrath-4
In reply to this post by Carlos O'Donell-6
I've added some deprecation header text to the ports/ChangeLog* files that
lacked it.  I've then moved ports/ChangeLog* to ChangeLog.old-ports* so
that there is no longer a ports/ subdirectory at all.  Huzzah.

I think we should now discontinue use of the libc-ports mailing list.
The mailing list configuration should be left around at least as much
as is required to keep the archives accessible on the web.  Beyond
that, I think we should now ask overseers to change it either so that
mailing libc-ports bounces or so that libc-ports just redirects to
libc-alpha.  Objections?


Thanks,
Roland
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The hppa port is now moved out of ports.

Carlos O'Donell-6
On 04/30/2014 01:44 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:

> I've added some deprecation header text to the ports/ChangeLog* files that
> lacked it.  I've then moved ports/ChangeLog* to ChangeLog.old-ports* so
> that there is no longer a ports/ subdirectory at all.  Huzzah.
>
> I think we should now discontinue use of the libc-ports mailing list.
> The mailing list configuration should be left around at least as much
> as is required to keep the archives accessible on the web.  Beyond
> that, I think we should now ask overseers to change it either so that
> mailing libc-ports bounces or so that libc-ports just redirects to
> libc-alpha.  Objections?

No objections from me.

The website is already updated to indicate libc-ports is now historical
like libc-hacker.

Cheers,
Carlos.