| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Because of that, i see no reason to keep the older versions of glibc |
| 4 |
> around. This would also give us a chance to clean up the ebuilds without |
| 5 |
> causing massive breakage. the eblits need to die. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Who is actually maintaining glibc, and what ebuilds do THEY want to |
| 9 |
keep around? I'm not sure why this needs a big community decision |
| 10 |
around cleaning them out. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
They can keep around 10-year-old versions of glibc as far as I'm |
| 13 |
concerned, as long as they promptly address bugs that are blockers for |
| 14 |
other packages. If they don't, then I'm all for unblocking those |
| 15 |
other packages (ie the maintainers of the other packages can ignore |
| 16 |
old glibc bugs and proceed to break systems that use those versions). |
| 17 |
So, nobody is forcing the glibc maintainers to do anything, but |
| 18 |
neither are the glibc maintainers forcing anybody else to do anything |
| 19 |
to support stuff more than a year old. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives