Hi, On Jun 30, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Erik Smeets <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the trouble in dropping an actively used toolchain. Would it be > an idea to have a comment like "deprecated" behind those toolchains that > aren't actively maintained when getting the list with --list-toolchains? Or > split the list in two sections: official/actively maintained toolchains and > unofficial/community maintained toolchains?
My take on this is that we shouldn’t deprecate goolf - at least not yet. Instead, I’d rather consider if deprecating/renaming first couple of foss toolchains would give benefits for v3.0, because then the distinction of foss vs goolf gets a clear meaning: it is with or without (your own) binutils! Then this table gets updated with a footnote and everyone’s happy without much fuss (much foss? :) http://easybuild.readthedocs.io/en/latest/eb_list_toolchains.html Don’t get me wrong, both goolf and foss have their function; we just need to present it right. Fotis -- echo "sysadmin know better bash than english" | sed s/min/mins/ \ | sed 's/better bash/bash better/' # signal detected in a CERN forum
