From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02EEF139694 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2039C21C090; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA93AE0DCE for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g60so28919042qtd.3 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:27:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x46QJ3foAVKBEPwYNrDHKEMoJXnHBfCXIF0sOXWfSj4=; b=DrX+1epyIdDpxYJu6V1OVUe9IoIWb0oISfNigxhL/XbP8BkB2HGANtmQLSFHSMw8tX LAXDNEWrcpkW+ajc1RNv3MhJMH8c0b6NtPADPgeRJkuS7BFtt1wVRKVyuDGXDMkYv7Pq Kb0pmm0LPkma7jKQNi+SJS8PnNbBUgwhQovs8l6gXyaNdmEOS0KR48pmKhkcuEp2LmHk ayavSAuAzCDzTjJjBSYb0ktpAx5Jg6mABDo9ZI7yoYt48So4AK02lUBb4xYE3jHeD+dG 62baxH93+WQTcmc9icFap+QDOYm8tHfQyNHidO3YSb6h/jdn2tkfF6ynrwsdv0xwLi35 diFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x46QJ3foAVKBEPwYNrDHKEMoJXnHBfCXIF0sOXWfSj4=; b=MJVde49xTI7vKr5j3FIbMpOnb/fkceMs/fYZuSLezegO06hiuMGonGxUdRv87Cqai8 Ffrcpma+GDXFWm7PJ5kUc/skB3e+cndtMMKGNYUlj1EYeiE+CNQpTlYI7Z188pHK4B+e D8/Xzav0AELTEARIo/APJ6fXb3KJY55J+kvmoLtEEz6L5NlFyxitR+isR9eqlSWCdQ8J RvjBRf6v7re0g1nBFoMODUJ+5neJu5SPOwrPHSaaO174cVXBAnZ476aKDL1KwuzpWdbs 8RCo3TsUgjEibMIxW50Uw3q6neLveao2pNIcM4JJIXhh4pFsSu6MVgED52Y9JgwbfIkj 8Bfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/66nLQNpfvtAwrjkjNzCMtYPVLqVXL+v9rZ88orY5tyq/EpSd60 GUuhHxyJ3Kb029R7 X-Received: by 10.237.35.134 with SMTP id j6mr5525995qtc.256.1493306829827; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from whubbs1.gaikai.biz ([100.42.103.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r19sm1826269qkl.54.2017.04.27.08.27.08 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 11677 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:27:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:27:08 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc Message-ID: <20170427152708.GA11643@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1492950948.19560.1.camel@gentoo.org> <1629949.a07gNpRjfP@pinacolada> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1629949.a07gNpRjfP@pinacolada> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Archives-Salt: 6b4984b1-6af5-491c-aa9b-0f380b22cdc7 X-Archives-Hash: a15ac0d006fab73767a6582f218199a9 --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:19AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 23. April 2017, 14:35:48 CEST schrieb Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny: > > Hi, > >=20 > > I'm thinking of masking old versions of sys-devel/gcc, in particular > > older than the 4.9 branch. > >=20 >=20 > Masking is fine; some time later (maybe in a few months) I'd even suggest= =20 > masking all of gcc-4. After all, unmasking them if you really need them i= s=20 > rather easy. >=20 > About removing them (what William proposed), I'd keep what we have now. W= e had=20 > this discussion already in lots of detail in the past, and convincing poi= nts=20 > were made to keep one of each 4.x ... I"m not talking about 4.x, just 2.x and 3.x. I'm not even talking about masking 4.x. I'm sure there may be reasons to keep these in the tree. I'm just questioning why we need 2.x and 3.x in the main tree. As has been said by others on the thread, those really old versions could probably go to the toolchain overlay. William --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTVeuxEZo4uUHOkQAluVBb0MMRlOAUCWQINxwAKCRBuVBb0MMRl OPqdAKCEYPSlyuNdVI7SdSqpZK0WSy9D5gCgqITCsHDW07MkRfuamx2eyMsn8Gs= =i/aB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--