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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]: > > > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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