On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 20:37 -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > I'm curious why gcc-2.95 or even gcc-3.3 is still in the archives? Is > > there a mistrust for newer stuff or something related to stability as > > is the case with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? Thanks... > > What's the reason for your question? Is there a reason why these compilers > should not be available? Nothing forces you to use them, if you do not > want to. > > Myself, as long as the recommended kernel compiler continues to be 2.95, it
Is that really true? I've been using the 3.x series for a good while, and am now using gcc 4.0. > will have a place on my box. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
