On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Loïc Minier loic.minier@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If we release a 'ltrace-linaro', which turns into the Ubuntu package 'ltrace-linaro', can it be superseded by a later 'ltrace' release?
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.
-- Michael