On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Zach Welch <zwe...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 10/05/2010 01:56 PM, Michael Hope wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Loďc 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 'ltrace-linaro', can it be superseded by a later 'ltrace' release?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.
Agreed. We have members specifically asking for ltrace so if upstream dont't react in a reasonable time frame then we'll have to. Note that Linaro secondary projects are not maintained but may be useful to others. > 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. I'm happy for you to spend up to a man-week helping upstream with this process. > 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. Good, thanks. -- Michael _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
