Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)

["Neil L. Roeth" <neil@occamsrazor.net>]

On Mar 18, Matthias Klose (doko@cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
 > Neil L. Roeth writes:
 >  > I don't think you understand - I don't believe there is a bug in gcc.
 > 
 > You're right. Until you describe the problem and submit an appropriate 
 > bug report, I don't understand it. If it's not a gcc bug, then a
 > statement why A+ cannot use gcc-2.95.3 would be helpful. I cannot find 
 > such a statement on the web page.

Submit a bug against what? gcc, which I don't think has a bug, or A+,
which is not a package because I cannot compile it with the compiler
supported in potato? :-)

I'll be able to provide the statements about why A+ cannot use
gcc-2.95.3 right after I get it to compile under gcc-2.95.3, at which
point it will be of historical interest only.

 >  > The source code I am trying to compile is just not up to date with the
 >  > differences between 2.91.66 and 2.95.2.  While we work on updating the
 >  > source code to 2.95.2, there's value to me in making the older
 >  > compiler available in potato (or woody) so I can make a Debian package
 >  > out of it now.
 > 
 > - you cannot make egcs-1.1.2 available in potato; it's frozen.
 > - as Ray pointed out egcs-1.1.2 doesn't build with glibc-2.2.

Fine, I guess A+ will not be a Debian package until it compiles under
2.95.2, or whatever is in woody.

-- 
Neil L. Roeth
neil@occamsrazor.net