Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > >> > 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. > > I have not yet faced a situation where newer binutils wont, work.
#336022, as the latest example I saw. [snip] > > Apparently those packages weren't useful/important enough to bring them > > into Debian... > > Are debian compiler packages intended to compile debian packages only, or > also to be used as compiler for non-debian tasks also? IMHO the latter, as long as it incurs no additional overhead. > The situation is: gcc-2.95 is no longer needed to compile debian packages, > but it is still needed for other tasks, by many people. By whom, and for what? So far I haven't heard a specific project's name. > So why remove it? Is it worth to fix when it breaks again? (Currently it FTBFS on alpha, probably binutils-induced.) Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
