[Correcting my correction to Petr's address] Hi Jonathan, On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Could you possibly also rearchitect the patch series please, in the >> light of the following: >> * There have been a (very) few changes to upstream ld.so.8, so you'll >> need to rebase. > > Sure, no problem. > >> * Please clearly separate out those pieces that simply bridge the gap >> between upstream ld.so.8 and Debian ld.so.8 and those pieces that are >> your own enhancements. (I did correctly understand that there are some >> of those, right?). > > Do I understand correctly that you want first a patch that makes it look > just like Debian's ld.so.8, and after that patches that make it more > palatable? That doesn't seem quite right to me --- for example, it would > mean first reverting the changes to upstream ld.so.8 and then reapplying > them again. IIUC, your purpose is to allow Debian to drop downstream ld.so.8, by ensuring that upstream ld.so.8 has everything that useful from the downstream (purpose 1). Along the way, you also saw places where the upstream page could be further improved with *new* material (purpose 2). Right? What I'm saying is, please keep a good separation between those two purposes in your patch. Simplest would be a series of patches that dealt with purpose 1, followed by another series for purpose 2. Does that make sense? -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
