On 10/05/2010 01:56 PM, Michael Hope wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Loïc Minier <loic.min...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010, Michael Hope wrote: >>> Could you please: >>> * Mention the idea to upstream to see if anyone disagrees >>> * See if anyone upstream has other ARM or x86 patches to include >>> * Test under ARM Thumb-2, i686, and x86_64 >>> * Spin a tarball to go out with the 2010.11 release. >> >> NB: If we spin a tarball which is more than an upstream snapshot (e.g. >> we include patches from the mailing-list), we should rename it (for >> instance "ltrace-linaro") > > Hmm. There's a conflict there. One requirement is to be 'traceable > back to the upstream version'. If we pick up random patches then that > is hard and calling it ltrace-linaro makes sense. However, we also > want later upstream ltrace release to automatically obsolete ours. > > If we release a 'ltrace-linaro', which turns into the Ubuntu package > 'ltrace-linaro', can it be superseded by a later 'ltrace' release?
Personally, I think the simplest/best solution will be to encourage upstream to release a new version. At the very least, I would like to see all of the needed patches make it into an official upstream Git tree, which presently seems unlikely to happen soon without some help. Certainly, I believe that Linaro should avoid maintaining this type of secondary project indefinitely, and that is exactly what I see happening unless something changes with the upstream project. I sent an e-mail to the ltrace-devel list today to encourage one of the recent contributors to begin preparing a new tree for the purposes of release, as he has been waiting patiently for almost a year in the hope that the maintainer will reappear and handle that task. There are literally dozens of patches that basically have been ignored during the past year which I think deserve to be committed, so I also directly encouraged the ltrace community to consider adopting a new maintainer and begin moving forward again. At the very least, I have turned the situation into a fire for the current maintainer that can't be ignored. Meanwhile, I have been trying to determine why I am getting lots of segfaults when running the test suite on an ARM test machine. On the upside, the x86 test suite works fine after a couple of the outstanding patches were applied to my tree, but they didn't solve the problems that I am seeing on ARM. I will continue to investigate these issues and brace myself for the possibility that I might need to spin a Linaro release. >> I wonder whether we should start some list of target distros for which >> we build binaries like this one, or valgrind or qemu or simply the >> toolchain > > I'm talking about similar things with Steve Langaseck. My minimum is > GCC and GDB native and cross on Ubuntu Lucid. Past that would be > Fedora, then openSUSE, then Windows 7. I'd like the Ubuntu packages > to actually be Debian packages that work well with Ubuntu. I presume this will all be readily automated? -- Zach Welch CodeSourcery zwe...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x743 _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
