[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

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.

> > 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.)


Reply to: