On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 04:16:11AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > > My plans are now, after some final small fixes, to integrate those changes > > with the latest unstable versions of binutils and gcc and then I'll propose > > that those changes should be applied to the official debian package. > > > > If there are no objections I'll simply file the patches as whislist bugs on > > gcc and binutils as soon as I have them ready. If you don't prefer I do a > > NMU that is... > > Sounds good, on the binutils side. If you need a conduit towards > submitting the AVR patches to the binutils maintainership, let me > know...I'd be happy to pass them along. Great! > > Also, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that NMU'ing a toolchain package > is often frowned upon. They're just too crucial to not have another set > of eyes looking over new patches (especially those that add new > targets) that might break existing things by accident. Yes, that is right, but since not all maintainers are active enough to accept this kind of patches that's alwas at least possible. > At any rate, send me your patches when you get them to apply cleanly to > the latest woody binutils version. I'll look them over and apply them to > my next upload. I'll also see if they'll apply cleanly to the latest CVS > and we can go from there, as far as getting them committed upstream. Well, for the binutil case the target code is already in the upstream version. All the patch do in that case is to fix up the debian files to have the pkg build several bunitils packages for the diffrent acrhitectures. -- Hakan Ardo <hakan@debian.org>, http://master.debian.org/~hakan
Attachment:
pgp85j_7SAmfM.pgp
Description: PGP signature