Hello, Thomas Schwinge, le Sat 28 Feb 2009 17:41:56 +0100, a écrit : > I think I would base this on the official glibc git mirror and publish > it again from the Hurd Savannah git repository
Mmm, shouldn't we rather maintain a patch queue? That would make (re-)submission/review easier. > cvs-ECANCELED.diff: Should perhaps be renamed (or submitted again...), No need to resubmit, Roland said he would commit the regeneration when he would get on working on it again. > local-atomic-no-multiple_threads.diff: FYI: I have an updated version for > the conflict that arises when updating the file to the current CVS HEAD > version. Ok. I'm really far from happy about this file. Either we fork but will have to track mainline improvements, or we add a completely unnecessary multiple_threads field that would always be 1. > local-gcc-4.1-init-first.diff: Perhaps rename submitted, as this, or > variants of it, have actually been submitted, like, three times at > least... Mmm, IIRC Roland explicitely didn't like it, so I wouldn't call it submitted. > local-msg-nosignal.diff: Still needed? Yes, as long as we do not have a hurd package rebuilt with MSG_NOSIGNAL defined > local-net-headers.diff: Rename, as is in CVS? Right. > local-no-strerror_l.diff: Can be replaced with the following code Ah, hadn't noticed it. > local-pthread_types.diff: While functional equivalent, this change should > rather go into a new file in sysdeps/mach/hurd/bits/. (Tested.) Right. > local-tls-dtv-offset.diff: What about simply providing our own file in > sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386/? Again the same balance between tracking mainline updates or applying the patch. Again only because mainline assumes that i386 means NPTL... Well, I guess we'll have to provide it anyway. > As for a bunch of the other submitted-* patches, should we perhaps give > it a last try and resubmit them? Well, you can try. Samuel