Re: Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)

["Neil L. Roeth" <neil@occamsrazor.net>]

On Mar 15, Adrian Bunk (bunk@fs.tum.de) wrote:
 > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
 > 
 > > I, too, would like to see egcs 1.1.2 (2.91.66) in potato.  I recently
 > > had to compile a program that would compile with that, but not with
 > > 2.95.2, and when I tried to install the slink package it told me it
 > >...
 > 
 > Is the problem why the problem doesn't compile a bug in gcc or a bug in
 > the program?

A bug in the program, A+.  It was just released open source by Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter at the end of January, and I would like to package
it for Debian.  I could not do that easily because it doesn't compile
with 2.95.2.  It does compile with 2.91.66, so if that were a potato
package, I could build the complete set of source and binary packages
with little trouble, except that the source package would have to
depend on 2.91.66.  2.91.66 isn't a potato package, so I cannot do
that.  I am working with the developers of A+ to get it to compile
under 2.95.2.  Once it is, I'll resume packaging it.

I thought that if there was general interest in packaging 2.91.66, I
should add my voice as someone who would use it, short term, that's
all.

-- 
Neil L. Roeth
neil@occamsrazor.net