| 1 |
El 21/09/11 18:39, Pandu Poluan escribió: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" |
| 5 |
> <klondike@g.o <mailto:klondike@g.o>> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not going |
| 8 |
> > to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version |
| 9 |
> > available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older versions. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Aha, thanks for the explanation. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I do agree with the stance to not push for stabilization if older |
| 15 |
> versions will not be supported by upstream. However, since -r13 is by |
| 16 |
> definition 5 revisions later than -r8, and to the best of my knowledge |
| 17 |
> has no show-stopping bugs (at least, none on my systems -- touch |
| 18 |
> wood!), IMHO -r13 shouldn't be removed. Just remove the intermediate |
| 19 |
> revisions. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
There is a show stopping bug |
| 22 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378731 :P |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Especially since going from 2.6.x to 3.x exposed a LOT of package |
| 25 |
> breakages (e.g., packages hard-coded to expect exactly /^2\.6/), I'm |
| 26 |
> still not comfortable enough using 3.x. Maybe later in December. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to upgrade |
| 29 |
> > but if something fails you are in your own ;) |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Fair enough. But now I have to do additional acrobatics for new |
| 33 |
> systems ;-) |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
Well you can always use an overlay I think the package wasn't removed. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> > PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;) |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Proomiiiise...? (in the voice of a little girl) |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
Well just don't get to near of Aleister :P |
Archives