| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular |
| 6 |
> > older than the 4.9 branch. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest |
| 10 |
> masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking them if you really need them is |
| 11 |
> rather easy. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> About removing them (what William proposed), I'd keep what we have now. We had |
| 14 |
> this discussion already in lots of detail in the past, and convincing points |
| 15 |
> were made to keep one of each 4.x ... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I"m not talking about 4.x, just 2.x and 3.x. I'm not even talking about |
| 18 |
masking 4.x. I'm sure there may be reasons to keep these in the tree. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm just questioning why we need 2.x and 3.x in the main tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As has been said by others on the thread, those really old versions |
| 23 |
could probably go to the toolchain overlay. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives