Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 16:52:22 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: > > Please let's not "tidy up" gentoo. That "old" stuff is useful even if > its not useful to those who don't see a use for it. Let the maintainers > decide if they want to put effort into keeping it around.
Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms like toolchain.eclass are generated, with dozens of case distinctions for packages that *nearly* noone needs. Yes it's fine to keep old things for a few people, does it merit slowing everyone else down though? Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, 2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, 2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, 4.5.4, 4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, 4.7.3-r1, 4.7.4, 4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep breath) 4.9.2? I mean, it's not as if these were the exact same packages as when originally stabilized, in an archiving sense, since in the meantime random eclass settings were flipped around.) +1 for an "archive overlay" -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer [email protected] http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
