Re: Why is 2.95 still around?
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 08:17 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 11/10/05, Marc Wilson <msw@cox.net> 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.
>
> I thought that newer compilers ought to better than the older ones
The 3.x & 4.0.x series sometimes build bigger and slower binaries.
And definitely compile things slower.
However, they have many more features (C99, AMD64, much better C++
support, etc, etc, etc).
> (latest and greatest); I wanted to know if these older compilers are
> widely used and therefore people having mistrust for newer stuff; I
> assumed all packages in debian had to be recompiled with either
> version 4.0 or 3.4. I don't dislike these compilers and want to know
They are. Depending on the branch, of course.
> from those with experience (which I lack) what's their views.
> Thanks...
> > Myself, as long as the recommended kernel compiler continues to be 2.95, it
> > will have a place on my box.
>
> I didn't know this...
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
"All machines, no matter how complex, are considered to be based
on 6 simple elements: the lever, the pulley, the wheel and axle,
the screw, the wedge and the inclined plane."
Marilyn Vos Savant
Reply to: