Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
>> > 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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...
Are debian compiler packages intended to compile debian packages only, or
also to be used as compiler for non-debian tasks also?
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. So why remove it?
Reply to: