On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:45:49AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 12/22/14 23:55, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > this discussion got side-tracked into gcc, which was not my intent; > > let's go back to my specific question about glibc. > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >>> some of such software is > >>> binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly. > >> Please give REASONS why things should remain maintained. So far (except for > >> the gcc-3/hardened explanations, and for gcc-3 doing more fortran than > >> gcc-4(??)) this is mostly mumbo-jumbo about "someone might need it", > >> proprietary binary blobs (should we even care? if yes, why?) and similar. > > > > I vote that we shouldn't care about proprietary binary blobs. > > Oh dear god this is going from bad to worse. I love blobs as much as > the next person but there are people that need this stuff if gentoo is > to be useful for them. Let's not care about blobs and shut down > linx.net where Tony Vroon (Chainsaw) uses gentoo and runs broadcom II > which need blobs.
I have never heard him say that keeping old software in the tree is necessary for the blobs he uses. If that is the case, that is something that must be considered. I was just echoing the current policy about blobs; they are not a reason to block stabilization of other packages etc. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
