On 11/04/2013 13:19, Corinna Vinschen 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.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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.
Yes, that's what I meant to imply by the wording. Different name + suffixed
executables = out of the way.
Also, I don't plan on doing it unless there's significant demand.
cheers,
DaveK
