On Apr 11 13:14, Dave Korn wrote: > On 11/04/2013 11:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Apr 11 01:58, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > >> On 2013-04-11 01:02, Dave Korn wrote: > >>> Yep, sure. *sigh*, I'm sure we'll suddenly find out that someone was > >>> using > >>> it and wants to know where it's gone. (I suppose if that happens I could > >>> always consider rolling a gcc3 package with all -3 suffixed executables.) > >> 3.4 is EOL and should have been dropped long ago; we simply don't > >> have the resources to support it ourselves. Just about any software > >> that people are building today either works with recent 4.x or the > >> distros have a patch for it. > > > > FWIW, I agree. > > > > > > AOL-Corinna > > I said I could consider it, I didn't say I was necessarily going to do it :) > > Still, you'd be surprised the number of questions I see on random websites > (stackoverflow, linuxquestions and similar) where someone's asking how to > install an old GCC to build some old software.
So what? It's definitely wrong that our "gcc" package installs an old gcc, rather than a recent one. If you really want to stick to an old gcc, make sure it's not the default. Call it gcc-3 or legacy-gcc, but let's get it out of the way of the most recent version. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
