| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:04 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:01PM +0100, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 3 |
>> IMHO, maintaining a sensible set of old glibc versions of the last 5 |
| 4 |
>> years makes sense, and we should try to support it: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> We have a general policy in the distro that says we only have to worry |
| 7 |
> about one year. Besides that, linux-2.6.32, which is the oldest kernel |
| 8 |
> glibc-2.20 will support was released in 2009, so I think it is |
| 9 |
> reasonable to drop the old glibc versions. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think a general policy like this makes sense. Nothing prevents a |
| 13 |
maintainer from keeping around stuff longer, but that should be up to |
| 14 |
them (and issues in old versions shouldn't be the responsibility of |
| 15 |
others to clean up if they are blockers - just move forward and let |
| 16 |
things break after a warning or treeclean if the problem is really |
| 17 |
serious). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Manpower is limited in Gentoo in general, and there is little point in |
| 20 |
pouring a lot of it into one particular package unless you pour just |
| 21 |
as much effort into other related packages. By having a guideline of |
| 22 |
one year it gives everybody something to aim for - we keep around |
| 23 |
year-old kernels that work with year-old gcc and glibc and year-old |
| 24 |
sysvinit implementations, and so on. It also lets our users have a |
| 25 |
sense up-front of what to expect - they /might/ happen to get a bit |
| 26 |
more out of the odd package, but we're not RHEL. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If somebody wants to run a "Gentoo Ancient" overlay or such, more power to them! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives