| 1 |
Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 16:52:22 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Please let's not "tidy up" gentoo. That "old" stuff is useful even if |
| 4 |
> its not useful to those who don't see a use for it. Let the maintainers |
| 5 |
> decide if they want to put effort into keeping it around. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms like |
| 8 |
toolchain.eclass are generated, with dozens of case distinctions for packages |
| 9 |
that *nearly* noone needs. Yes it's fine to keep old things for a few people, |
| 10 |
does it merit slowing everyone else down though? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, |
| 13 |
2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, |
| 14 |
2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
(On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, |
| 17 |
4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, 4.5.4, |
| 18 |
4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, 4.7.3-r1, 4.7.4, |
| 19 |
4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep breath) 4.9.2? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I mean, it's not as if these were the exact same packages as when originally |
| 22 |
stabilized, in an archiving sense, since in the meantime random eclass |
| 23 |
settings were flipped around.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1 for an "archive overlay" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 31 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 32 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives