svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[Bryan Drewery]

On 2014-03-27 11:44, John Marino wrote:
> On 3/27/2014 17:39, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> 
>> I agree completely with you. I don't understand why we remove ports 
>> that
>> are working perfectly fine, except where broken or no upstream and 
>> there
>> are security concerns. As a user I hate this. I still want older gcc 
>> and
>> tcl. Portage has *32* versions of GCC while we have 4. For me, picking 
>> a
>> development platform is all about which packages are available to test
>> the portability of my code.
> 
> To be pedantic, you are neglecting my work:
>   lang/gnat-aux (expiring)
>   lang/gcc47-aux
>   lang/gcc49-aux
>   lang/gnatdroid-armv5
>   lang/gnatdroid-armv7
> 
> so that's 5 more right off the bat.  And they differ from the vanilla
> lang/gccXX, otherwise they could be combined.
> 

I don't care or know what those are. I only care about the main GCC 
ports in my count. I also did not include the ADA gcc compiler in my 
portage count.

> And as somebody who can speak to it, maintaining GCC ports is quite
> demanding.  they are not easy.  There's a pragmatic argument to be made
> here.  Also older gccs are hard to keep running (see 2.95, 3.4, etc)
> 

Sure, maybe. As I said, *not broken ports*. There is NO demand to 
maintain something if it just works. If it breaks, deprecate it, and 
then remove it if no one steps up. Perfectly fine.

> John

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery