Re: What is glibc-ports?

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:16:21 -0400, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 16 April 2012 13:37:48 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > * If a port isn't maintained we should remove it from the tree. You
> > can use source control to resurrect it.
> 
> in general, i agree
> 
> > * glibc v.s. glibc-ports is an artificial distinction that we should kill.
> 
> would be nice

I agree to both.

> > * Move glibc-ports back into glibc under ports/ so I can stop dealing
> > with two repos.
> 
> i like this too, except i'm not sure if there's a way to do it without losing 
> history :(

It goes like this:

    $ git fetch -n sourceware.org:/git/glibc-ports.git master:ports/master
    $ git merge --no-commit -s ours ports/master
    $ git read-tree -u --prefix=ports/ ports/master
    $ git commit -a

The first command imports ports' history into ports/master.  Then, this
is merged into the current branch (but without really merging the files
in the checked out tree, which would result in conflicts).  Then,
ports/master's content is (cumulatively) read into ports/.  Next, commit
it all, resulting in a merge commit that makes glibc-ports available in
ports/.

> > * Some day in the future we move all machines into ports/ leaving
> > generic code outside of ports. If ports is good enough for ARM it's
> > good enough for everything else, and using ports/ day-to-day will
> > ensure it doesn't bit-rot.
> 
> sounds reasonable

Indeed does make some sense to me, too.  All the different
OSes/architectures are ports of glibc.


GrÃÃe,
 Thomas

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature