William Hubbs schrieb: >>> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going >>> to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for >>> them. >> >> iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems) >> play best together. > > I'm not sure how strong this argument is because we don't have any 2.4 > kernels in the tree, and I am wondering why we still have a > linux-headers-2.4.
Those systems will likely be unable to use any vanilla kernel either, but use specially patched kernels from the hardware vendor, for which no Gentoo package ever existed. > There seems to be a pretty high number of unmaintained packages in the tree > if you look at hwoarang's response to this thread, so I'm not sure how that is going. Not all maintainer-needed packages are neglected, broken or useless. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
