| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:27:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 4 |
> > > Hi, |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular |
| 7 |
> > > older than the 4.9 branch. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest |
| 11 |
> > masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking them if you really need them is |
| 12 |
> > rather easy. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > About removing them (what William proposed), I'd keep what we have now. We had |
| 15 |
> > this discussion already in lots of detail in the past, and convincing points |
| 16 |
> > were made to keep one of each 4.x ... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I"m not talking about 4.x, just 2.x and 3.x. I'm not even talking about |
| 19 |
> masking 4.x. I'm sure there may be reasons to keep these in the tree. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'm just questioning why we need 2.x and 3.x in the main tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I still use fortran software which needs 3.4.x g77. There may be |
| 24 |
similar cases for people to use 2.95. IMO removing older gcc will |
| 25 |
do much more harm than good. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives