On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 09:28:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: >All, > >the following is a comment Mike made about the status of glibc in an >earlier thread on this list: > >On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> upstream glibc has dropped support for older Linux kernels. your >> choices: >> - upgrade your kernel >> - switch to a different C library >> - stick with glibc-2.19 for a while >> >> be warned though there are no plans atm to backport things to >> glibc-2.19. this includes security fixes, but more importantly as >> time moves on, making newer gcc versions sanely compile glibc. >> we've kept older glibc versions around to be nice, and on a part >> time basis for cross-compiling, but none of those are given >> priority. i.e. fixes come as people feel like doing them. >> >> certainly once glibc-2.20+ goes stable, there is no expectation let >> alone requirement that packages in the tree be kept working with >> older glibc versions. the maintenance cost there is unreasonable. >> >> i guess if you're stuck on old crap, now would be a good time to >> start preparing to unstick your crap. glibc-2.20 will most likely >> be in ~arch in the next 6 months. >> -mike > >Since glibc-2.19-r1 is stable everywhere, what I want to know is >whether we can remove versions *prior* to 2.19-r1 at this point. > >If we do, that makes it easy to fix bug 478764 [1], because there would >only be three versions of glibc we have to worry about. > >thoughts? > >William > >[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478764
+1 from me. I cannot think of any scenario where we need to keep such old glibc versions around. Cheers Lars -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC
pgpEZT7DrqxH3.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
