Re: [PATCH 1/5] projects/glibc: slightly adjust the structure
Carlos O'Donell <[email protected]> Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:22:46 -0500
| Newsgroups | org.linuxfoundation.lists.cti-tac |
|---|---|
| Organization | Red Hat |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/7/24 14:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Add some subheadings and fix a broken link. > The HTML part is not OK. Please check format of cross doc ref. > Signed-off-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <[email protected]> > --- > source/projects/glibc.rst | 11 +++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/source/projects/glibc.rst b/source/projects/glibc.rst > index 7e6604a..a400dab 100644 > --- a/source/projects/glibc.rst > +++ b/source/projects/glibc.rst > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ In 2024 the goal is to migrate the glibc project to use CTI services. > > The community feedback was collected from July to August 2023. > > +Current Status > +-------------- OK. > + > The `GNU Maintainers for the glibc project > <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Project_stewards_.28GNU_package_maintainers.29>`_ > were asked to make a decision on switching to the services provided by > @@ -24,13 +27,17 @@ this document to provide assurances that FOSS would be used to provide > services and that there was a checking mechanism in place for services > to remain FOSS. > > -Next steps: > +Next steps > +---------- OK. > > * Revisit discussion with Paul Eggert and attain resolution in March 2024 > to move forward. > > Posted originally here: https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/[email protected]/ > > +Service migration > +----------------- OK. > + > The following is the suggested list of services to be migrated (with notes): > > * Mailing lists > @@ -81,7 +88,7 @@ The following is the suggested list of services to be migrated (with notes): > * Isolate BBB from other services. > > The current list of glibc services were put together as part of the > -CTI TAC `glibc service enumeration <./enum>`_. > +CTI TAC `glibc service enumeration <./enum.html>`_. I don't think this is correct. I agree the website link is broken, but it has to be a cross-document reference that works when generated as html (rather than assume html). > > ----------------- > -- Cheers, Carlos.