| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to |
| 4 |
> optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to |
| 5 |
> last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and only then, send |
| 6 |
> emails one at a time. Doing that en masse isn't appropriate. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
++ - I have no idea if that happened. For anything USE-controlled it |
| 9 |
would make more sense to file a bug or mask the package-flag combo |
| 10 |
itself. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed from |
| 14 |
> gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm sure a million people would share that preference. I'm not sure |
| 18 |
what the upstream/security status is of 2.7. Obviously to keep it |
| 19 |
around it would need to be reasonably secure, and somebody within |
| 20 |
Gentoo would have to want to maintain it. That's basically the |
| 21 |
criteria for keeping anything like this around. If somebody stepped |
| 22 |
up and said "I'm maintaining 2.7 and here is why it will remain |
| 23 |
secure..." I doubt they'd get a lot of resistance. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives