Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
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?