> Dave Carrigan wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: >> >> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95 >> > maintenance for etch. >> >> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean >> that end users have the same luxury. > > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99 > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued > maintenance of gcc 2.95?
Device driver development for embedded systems? There are embedded systems, including x86-based, that run kernels which fail to compile with gcc >= 3.x. Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for demonstration/education/similar purposes. I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state. Not fixing internal compiler bugs - user who faces old compiler's failure to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but just keeping packages installable and usable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
