xscale port of fedora core 2

[Lennert Buytenhek]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:48:17PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> > > >Yeah.  There are lots of strange things to be found in userland.  Like
> > > >openssl assuming that linux-elf == i386, for example.
> > > >
> > > >OK, so how do I go from here?  Should I just submit all my patches to
> > > >bugzilla and wait?
> > > 
> > > - File against each component in product "Fedora Core".
> > 
> > OK, my binutils patch just got rejected because "Fedora Core 2 isn't
> > ported to the ARM."
> 
> If you have FC2 based port, please keep the patch local to the ARM port
> (say have binutils-2.15.90.0.3-5xscale.src.rpm instead of what was shipped
> in FC2 - e.g. Fedora Core SPARC port does the same).

OK, so the question was, if the goal would be to have my patches
integrated into FC3, should I have submitted them to devel/test1
instead of to '2'?


> I don't think it is a good idea to issue FC2 updates just because there
> was an ARM patch added, FC2 users on i386/x86-64 would IMHO definitely
> not appreciate having to download the updates with zero changes.

Sure, that makes sense.  I'm a bit new to this bugzilla stuff, sorry.


> binutils in FC3 will be 2.15.91.0.2 (~end of July '04) or later, so the
> patch in question is definitely there for FC3.

You wrote that in the bugzilla entry too -- good to hear, thank you
very much.


cheers,
Lennert