[Wouter Verhelst] > What if I'm interested in writing such a driver myself, but less > interested in having to run Windows? Then you should get busy writing that driver. Without any such drivers in existence, it's hard to take this line of reasoning seriously. I find it absurd that someone would be interested in writing a Windows driver but not interested in running Windows to test it on. If that's really what you want to do, please say so, preferably with some sort of evidence. I hate to have to ask for evidence rather than taking your word for it, but the scenario seems so contrived that I'm afraid only evidence will make it seem less so. > apt-cache rdepends libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 > > Gee, only -dev, -dbg and gcc packages. Isn't that for non-free software? No, not really. There's plenty of software, free and otherwise, which one might wish to compile with g++ 2.95. Newer g++ versions get pickier about C++ syntax and semantics, and thus it's reasonable to retain g++ 2.95 so that people don't have to port their old software to modern C++. (Yes, I said "their" old software. Lots of people have written C++ code that they want to run on Debian, unlike Windows drivers.) Fortunately it seems very few packages in Debian require gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95 anymore. So yes, I agree, at some point we should drop the whole gcc-2.95 source package.
Description: Digital signature