On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:41:21 -0600 Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the > > timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the > > remaining broken packages will be gone. > > Absolutely not. They aren't even masked. There are usually a few niche > packages that can't be fixed but are in use. People can switch to a previous > version if they ever have to rebuild them. To clarify: we keep old versions of gcc in the tree for a reason, and it's not because we're history buffs. "Doesn't build with GCC x.x" alone is never grounds for removal. "Is unmaintained and doesn't build with GCC x.x" is perfectly fine, however, and some people use the gcc trackers to identify such packages. Maybe that's the correlation you see. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
