1 |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 12/22/14 10:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |
5 |
>> wrote: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote: |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> IMHO, maintaining a sensible set of old glibc versions of the last 5 |
10 |
>>>> years makes sense, and we should try to support it: |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> We have a general policy in the distro that says we only have to worry |
13 |
>>> about one year. Besides that, linux-2.6.32, which is the oldest kernel |
14 |
>>> glibc-2.20 will support was released in 2009, so I think it is |
15 |
>>> reasonable to drop the old glibc versions. |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>> I think a general policy like this makes sense. Nothing prevents a |
18 |
>> maintainer from keeping around stuff longer, but that should be up to |
19 |
>> them (and issues in old versions shouldn't be the responsibility of |
20 |
>> others to clean up if they are blockers - just move forward and let |
21 |
>> things break after a warning or treeclean if the problem is really |
22 |
>> serious). |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Please let's not "tidy up" gentoo. That "old" stuff is useful even if its |
26 |
> not useful to those who don't see a use for it. Let the maintainers decide |
27 |
> if they want to put effort into keeping it around. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Wasn't that what I just said? Maintainers decide what they want to |
31 |
put effort into maintaining. The only bit I added beyond what you |
32 |
said is that if they DON'T maintain the old versions others don't have |
33 |
to do it for them. (ie, bugs against them don't count as blockers |
34 |
towards other changes in the tree) Treecleaning is only appropriate |
35 |
if things are horribly broken, which is the usual policy. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Rich |