| 1 |
On Thursday 01 January 2009 02:29:15 Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:51, Michael P. Soulier wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Having just been bitten by some of my hardware being abandoned with |
| 4 |
> > the latest |
| 5 |
> > version of a software package I am left to question the entire |
| 6 |
> > philosophy in |
| 7 |
> > gentoo of always running bleeding edge. Not touching a system that's |
| 8 |
> > working |
| 9 |
> > is becoming far more tempting, and I'm curious as to what others |
| 10 |
> > here have to |
| 11 |
> > say about that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I think what you should be asking is why upstream have stopped |
| 14 |
> supporting your hardware. Hopefully they'll be able to give a good |
| 15 |
> reason for doing so. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
He also asked a very generic question, the kind that doesn't really have an |
| 18 |
answer. So no-one likely will. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For all we know, the hardware in question is a floppy drive. Or token ring. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Michael, what package, what hardware are we talking about? |
| 23 |
Your question can only be answered in context. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> IMO the Gentoo philosophy is not to run "bleeding edge", but just to |
| 26 |
> install from upstream, keeping it as "pure" and unchanged as possible. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Gentoo is also somewhat general-purpose. There comes a point where obscure |
| 29 |
hardware is no longer worth the effort of supporting, or no-one is willing to |
| 30 |
do it, so that hardware has to be dropped. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives