On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > 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.
Speaking of which...... 4.8 is out.......
