| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent; |
| 6 |
> > let's go back to my specific question about glibc. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> some of such software is |
| 10 |
> >>> binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly. |
| 11 |
> >> Please give REASONS why things should remain maintained. So far (except for |
| 12 |
> >> the gcc-3/hardened explanations, and for gcc-3 doing more fortran than |
| 13 |
> >> gcc-4(??)) this is mostly mumbo-jumbo about "someone might need it", |
| 14 |
> >> proprietary binary blobs (should we even care? if yes, why?) and similar. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I vote that we shouldn't care about proprietary binary blobs. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Oh dear god this is going from bad to worse. I love blobs as much as |
| 19 |
> the next person but there are people that need this stuff if gentoo is |
| 20 |
> to be useful for them. Let's not care about blobs and shut down |
| 21 |
> linx.net where Tony Vroon (Chainsaw) uses gentoo and runs broadcom II |
| 22 |
> which need blobs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I have never heard him say that keeping old software in the tree is |
| 25 |
necessary for the blobs he uses. If that is the case, that is something |
| 26 |
that must be considered. I was just echoing the current policy about |
| 27 |
blobs; they are not a reason to block stabilization of other |
| 28 |
packages etc. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
William |
Archives