Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: glibc versions prior to 2.19-r1

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 12/23/14 09:39, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent;
>>> let's go back to my specific question about glibc.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>>> some of such software is
>>>>> binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly.
>>>> Please give REASONS why things should remain maintained. So far (except for
>>>> the gcc-3/hardened explanations, and for gcc-3 doing more fortran than
>>>> gcc-4(??)) this is mostly mumbo-jumbo about "someone might need it",
>>>> proprietary binary blobs (should we even care? if yes, why?) and similar.
>>>
>>>    I vote that we shouldn't care about proprietary binary blobs.
>> Oh dear god this is going from bad to worse.  I love blobs as much as
>> the next person but there are people that need this stuff if gentoo is
>> to be useful for them.  Let's not care about blobs and shut down
>> linx.net where Tony Vroon (Chainsaw) uses gentoo and runs broadcom II
>> which need blobs.
> I have never heard him say that keeping old software in the tree is
> necessary for the blobs he uses. If that is the case, that is something
> that must be considered. I was just echoing the current policy about
> blobs; they are not a reason to block stabilization of other
> packages etc.
>
> William
>
>

That's not what you said.  I was responding to "I vote that we shouldn't 
care about proprietary binary blobs" not to "I have never heard him say 
that keeping old software in the tree ..."

I test for him on his equipment and there you must care about 
proprietary blobs.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA