On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >> >> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were >> stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing >> versions on top of that. >> Who is the one to deterimine which one should go stable and which to > get rid of? >> We had some humble tryouts to create automatic stabilisation request >> which didn't turn out exactly well as most of the maintainers had to >> actually do more work ;-) > It is always up to the maintainer/herd as to when a package goes stable. > But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane. > Keep packages around that have been replaced with a newer package is > just insane. Yes the newer package has to move to stable first, but we > should be cleaning the tree up to only support what we really and truly > are gonna support. Do we really want to try and use gcc-2.95 to build > kernel-3.7? I highly doubt it would even work.
I am sure that some people find it very handy to have old gcc ebuilds around. It might come in handy for testing. It doesn't matter if they can't compile the latest kernel. If someone files a bug for that, it gets closed as invalid; no big deal. So long as the maintainers keep them working, I see no problem with old ebuilds in the tree.
