Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>>>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.
[...]
> I am quite sure that there are Debian *users* out there that have legacy
> code that only builds under gcc 2.95 (or more likely g++ 2.95) and they
> haven't ported it to a newer C compiler because there is no business
> case for it.
Dave, we're not working on the removal of gcc 2.95 for the fun of it.
Sarge ships with gcc 3.3 as default and supports gcc 2.95. More than one
year from now, Debian will release its next stable release and the
balance of the costs of continued support of gcc 2.95 versus its
benefits is shifting to a point where the effort of keeping 2.95 is
undesirable. Support for old compilers is quite an effort and it's in
the best interest of Debian and its users by dropping it so that Debian
can retain its high quality standard.
Debian is not rushing to drop gcc 2.95, but in the long run, it's
inevitable. Or, to put it in your words, there is a business case for
dropping gcc 2.95 support in etch.
> Removing a package simply because the Debian developers don't need it
> any more is the kind of arrogance that drives users away from Debian to
> other distributions.
Well, Debian is a fairly large sample of (free) software. If reliance on
gcc 2.95 is a vanishing characteristic of Debian packages, this suggests
that the general usage has diminished to a point where it is
unreasonable to continue support. this is why Thiemo asks for evidance
of the contrary. This has nothing to do with arrogance or developers
disregarding the interests of its users. It is about sustaining quality
by allocating resources appropriately.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: