Re: Proposal: removing libc5, altgcc and all their old-days dependencies
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:45:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) [030622 16:35]:
> > > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
> > > >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
> > > >the package.
> >
> > > This looks like a good enough reason to me.
> >
> > Sorry, but I can find no RFA/O-entry for this package. That should be
> > done first before kicking it off.
>
> That's not a rule. Maintainers are allowed to say that their package
> should be removed if they believe that it's no longer useful; they're
> usually much more qualified to say that than, say, the QA group are.
> It's not as if it's impossible for somebody else to reintroduce the
> package if they really care.
>
The point is I wonder if efforts of maintaining libc5-related packages
are proportional to benefits of having them in a modern distro as sarge,
whenever it will be available. In these days, zlib's maintainer already
dropped libc5 support. I have a grave bug in libc5 linker which is
currently unable to manage properly also a silly program.
Those kinds of problems will (probably) become quite constant in the future,
'cause of aging of those libs.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: