This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]