| 1 |
On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" < |
| 2 |
klondike@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not going |
| 5 |
> to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version |
| 6 |
> available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older versions. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Aha, thanks for the explanation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I do agree with the stance to not push for stabilization if older versions |
| 12 |
will not be supported by upstream. However, since -r13 is by definition 5 |
| 13 |
revisions later than -r8, and to the best of my knowledge has no |
| 14 |
show-stopping bugs (at least, none on my systems -- touch wood!), IMHO -r13 |
| 15 |
shouldn't be removed. Just remove the intermediate revisions. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Especially since going from 2.6.x to 3.x exposed a LOT of package breakages |
| 18 |
(e.g., packages hard-coded to expect exactly /^2\.6/), I'm still not |
| 19 |
comfortable enough using 3.x. Maybe later in December. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to upgrade |
| 22 |
> but if something fails you are in your own ;) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Fair enough. But now I have to do additional acrobatics for new systems ;-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Proomiiiise...? (in the voice of a little girl) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-D |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rgds, |
Archives