Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > > 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.
In that case you likely need as well an older binutils version, which probably means to use a sarge or even woody chroot. > 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 AFAICS this makes a point to have some (un-/little) maintained version of gcc-2.95 somewhere. It doesn't make a point to distribute it as part of an official etch release. > - user who faces old compiler's failure > to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but > just keeping packages installable and usable. Apparently those packages weren't useful/important enough to bring them into Debian... Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
