On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 04:53:02AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > > As far as I can tell the sh4 linux-kernel maintainer officially doesn't > > > care about anybody who isn't employed by his company, so I'm not sure I > > > still care about supporting that platform. It's not real hardware, it's > > > a one-company toy: > > > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/7233 > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/7237 > > > > If you continue to attack people like that, not sure I'll continue to > > care about your emails. > > I'm not asking anyone to care about me personally, I'm asking them to care > about specific technical issues. If those issues don't interest you, they > don't interest you. > > Speaking of ppc, last month I sent this patch: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg00917.html > > And I was under the impression people agreed with it: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg01044.html > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg01714.html > > But today's -git is still having that same issue, and the same patch still > applies cleanly and fixes it for me.
Re-read the last link you quoted, and especially this part: | The | same way using CONFIG_BSD in linux-user/elfload.c doesn't make sense, | as this code will never been compiled. While your patch goes in the good direction, it doesn't mean it is correct. Conditionally compiling code on CONFIG_BSD in a Linux specific file doesn't make sense. I am pretty fine applying a correct patch if you send a new one. > > Your emails on this mailing list are always > > complaining, and it really starts to be annoying. > > I tend to email when something isn't working for me, and not email when > things > are working for me, yes. > > In this case, I was listing the platforms I have existing .configs to build > system images for, and explaining why I've currently lost interest in one of > them (sh4), despite still being interested in even older things like the > alpha > and m68k (neither of which qemu has in-tree system emulations for yet). > > I was unaware of attacking anyone personally. I've never met the sh4 > maintainer, that I'm aware of. I disagree with his judgement call in this > instance. Of course I respect his right to take any position he likes, since > he _is_ maintainer, but his position removes any motivation to put more of my > own time into his platform just now. (I feel similarly disinterested in > itanium and pa-risc.) > I have no problem with you having no interest in sh4, a lot of people are in you case. I don't think it gives you the right to describe the sh4 kernel maintainer as "sh4 linux-kernel maintainer officially doesn't care about anybody who isn't employed by his company", or later "It's not real hardware, it's a one-company toy". This is not something reflected in link you quoted. Paul Mundt has been nicely answering your question on this thread. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
