From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ld.so.8: some improvements from Debian Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:23:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20120416182259.GW5813@burratino> References: <20111020070037.GA11392@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <20120416165806.GR5813@burratino> <20120416172408.GT5813@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Petr Baudis , Aurelien Jarno , Reuben Thomas List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > 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? Yeah, that makes more sense. I don't remember the details any more, but my intent was always only purpose #1. I do remember there being places where Debian and upstream differed and both seemed wrong, where I went my own way. Anyway, I will definitely try to follow the guideline you have suggested above. Thanks for your help. Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html