Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> 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.

> Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
> probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
> job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for
> demonstration/education/similar purposes.
> 
> I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not
> alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state.
> Not fixing internal compiler bugs

AFAICS this makes a point to have some (un-/little) maintained version
of gcc-2.95 somewhere. It doesn't make a point to distribute it as part
of an official etch release.

> - user who faces old compiler's failure
> to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but
> just keeping packages installable and usable.

Apparently those packages weren't useful/important enough to bring them
into Debian...


Thiemo