Re: Why is 2.95 still around?
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 20:37 -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > I'm curious why gcc-2.95 or even gcc-3.3 is still in the archives? Is
> > there a mistrust for newer stuff or something related to stability as
> > is the case with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? Thanks...
>
> What's the reason for your question? Is there a reason why these compilers
> should not be available? Nothing forces you to use them, if you do not
> want to.
>
> Myself, as long as the recommended kernel compiler continues to be 2.95, it
Is that really true? I've been using the 3.x series for a good
while, and am now using gcc 4.0.
> will have a place on my box.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Reply to: