From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2D77F3F for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:33:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E288F8074 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buxtehude.debian.org (buxtehude.debian.org [140.211.166.26]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id p4yMG3bAqtgrjPPq (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Bug#725971: xfsprogs: config.guess/config.sub out of date for arm64 Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:29:30 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20131015212930.GA5874@infradead.org> References: <20131010133811.GK32337@riva.ucam.org> <20131015194211.GA32095@infradead.org> <20131015212448.GM32337@riva.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131015212448.GM32337@riva.ucam.org> Reply-To: Christoph Hellwig , 725971@bugs.debian.org List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Colin Watson Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 725971@bugs.debian.org On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:24:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > I looked, but there's nothing to send; the xfsprogs repository doesn't > contain those files. They're updated by the configure target in > Makefile, which is run as part of ./release.sh via "make dist". (Good; > this should be as automatic as possible.) Oh, forgot about that. > IOW, any new upstream release will contain updated files as long as the > developer who built the release has current libtool etc. installed. But > of course this should be fixed to auto-update at build time in the > Debian packaging anyway, since we want to be able to port to new > architectures without having to upload lots of new source packages or > take lots of new upstream releases at the same time; it makes life so > much easier. As said, I don't disagree with your patch at all, I was just asking for an additional patch which turned out not to be nessecary. Thanks a lot! _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs