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 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]