On 12/23/14 09:39, William Hubbs wrote:
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
That's not what you said. I was responding to "I vote that we shouldn't
care about proprietary binary blobs" not to "I have never heard him say
that keeping old software in the tree ..."
I test for him on his equipment and there you must care about
proprietary blobs.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : [email protected]
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
