| 1 |
Stuart Longland posted <4274B10C.5060507@××××××××××××××××××.org>, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Sun, 01 May 2005 20:35:56 +1000: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
>> How long are all those non-cascaded profiles going to stick around? They |
| 6 |
>> make profile changes a mess for anyone who wants to do something crazy |
| 7 |
>> like change default USE flags for everyone. (Who would ever need to do |
| 8 |
>> that?!?!) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I was just thinking this myself. Are there any users still using Gentoo |
| 11 |
> Linux 1.4 or 2004.0? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I know the default-amd64-2004.2/deprecated file says it's subject to |
| 14 |
removal after 2005.07.01. I don't remember the date of the last time this |
| 15 |
discussion came up (tho I do remember someone posted a nice dependency map |
| 16 |
of what profiles depended on what, nice graphic that was!), but I believe |
| 17 |
the deprecated files appeared in several of those legacy "flat" profiles |
| 18 |
as a result thereof. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Of course, note that the amd64 arch tends to be a bit more forward leaning |
| 21 |
than others, including x86, with its larger user base including a decent |
| 22 |
segment of conservative "enterprise", or as I'd personally opine, |
| 23 |
"legacy", users, so 2004.2 for amd64 probably roughly equates to 2004.0 |
| 24 |
for x86. I really can't imagine anyone still on 1.4 that'd be attracted |
| 25 |
to Gentoo in the first place, but I'm sure in the large x86 base at least, |
| 26 |
there are likely to be some. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Assuming the amd64 profile above was deprecated at about the same time as |
| 29 |
the others, July 1st should be a good time to remove them all. For |
| 30 |
those without a specific deadline date in them (I checked the mentioned |
| 31 |
cobalt-mips-2004.1, no date there), but that have been deprecated for some |
| 32 |
time, sticking the July 1st date notice in them would be a useful thing to |
| 33 |
do, for any that might still be using them. That still gives them ~60 |
| 34 |
days notice, plus what they had b4 the date was put in. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Of course, should there be dates in any deprecated files already there, |
| 37 |
with said dates passed, shoot 'em now and get 'em out of their misery! <g> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I run amd64, so maybe I'm partial, but I certainly like the set date |
| 40 |
thing. IMO all archs should have a profile deprecation time policy, and |
| 41 |
stick dates in their deprecated files as appropriate. IIRC for amd64, |
| 42 |
it's something like 6 or 8 months from the first appearance of the |
| 43 |
deprecated file, which is then post-dated appropriately, save for |
| 44 |
"development" profiles, which usually come with a short deprecation time |
| 45 |
warning (six weeks notice I believe I saw in one) in them from the |
| 46 |
beginning. However, anyone bleeding edge enough to be using "development" |
| 47 |
profiles should in practice have moved on to the /next/ profile, usually |
| 48 |
the following official release, long before the deprecation notice |
| 49 |
appears, anyway. I know that's always been the case here. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 53 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 54 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 55 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives