On 14 December 2012 06:21, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chith...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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 > > >
They may not be broken or useless but if they are not neglected, please add yourself to metadata.xml. What's the point of having them marked as "unmaintained" if there is a maintainer behind them? -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
