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

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: