Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: [snip] > > Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which > > probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big > > job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for > > demonstration/education/similar purposes. > > > > I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not > > alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state. > > Not fixing internal compiler bugs > > AFAICS this makes a point to have some (un-/little) maintained version > of gcc-2.95 somewhere. It doesn't make a point to distribute it as part > of an official etch release. > > > - user who faces old compiler's failure > > to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but > > just keeping packages installable and usable. > > Apparently those packages weren't useful/important enough to bring them > into Debian...
s/packages/programs which need gcc 2.95/, that is. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
