| 1 |
Am 23. Dec 2014, 16:51 schrieb William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> just the simple fact that crossdev without the ability to select |
| 4 |
>> specific versions of glibc is only half as useful. And please, do not |
| 5 |
>> underestimate the usefulness of our crossdev script in this regard! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm not saying anything about breaking the crossdev script by making it |
| 8 |
> unable to select specific versions of glibc. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Then, we have to provide the ebuilds for those versions somehow. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Ok, this is something to consider then. 2.16 is not all that old, so |
| 14 |
> keeping it around for a while longer isn't a big deal. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Same goes for any other arbitrary version in the course of the last 4 |
| 17 |
years :-) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> - We could migrate older versions in a dedicated overlay with some |
| 21 |
>> sort of versioned toolchain.eclass/eblits. (same for the other |
| 22 |
>> canonical packages). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> It looks like there already is a toolchain overlay that might have this, |
| 25 |
> check git.overlays.gentoo.org. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I had a closer look at it and it turns out it is Mike's development |
| 28 |
and 'ebuild retirement' overlay. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
He already maintains some older versions in this overlay. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So, in conclusion, why not just asking him to just move older glibc |
| 33 |
versions back to the toolchain overlay as soon as they become |
| 34 |
unmaintained (i.e. without security backports)? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Best, |
| 37 |
Matthias |
Archives