On 2/10/24 6:22 AM, orbea wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:56:55 -0500
> Eli Schwartz <eschwartz93@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As evidenced by the removal of libressl and eudev, this logic is
>> fallacious and wrong and not the way Gentoo is developed.
> 
> Fwiw I still use both and Gentoo removing specifically Libressl has
> only been detrimental. There is a huge amount of extra and redundant
> maintainer work when all of the fixes have to be applied over and over
> again without changes as the main Gentoo repo gets updated. Its
> relatively rare that the fixes have to be rebased or changed against
> their respective upstream, but rebasing it against Gentoo is an
> extremely common and tedious task.
> 
> Your argument is invalid and not appreciated.


Sorry, could you clarify what you mean by this?

I made a comment about the facts of reality regarding how Gentoo *is*
developed. I understand that this has posed challenges to you and makes
your work harder. Nonetheless, my statement about facts and realities is
true: Gentoo really did remove upstream tree support for both from the
::gentoo tree.

What, therefore, is "invalid" about my argument? Are you writing to the
mailing list to inform me that my understanding of reality is invalid,
and that contrary to my belief, the ::gentoo tree *does* officially
support (and package!) libressl and eudev?


-- 
Eli Schwartz