zcip: 1.1.stable vs 1.2 ?

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Tue Sep 12 21:56:09 UTC 2006


On Tuesday 12 September 2006 5:41 pm, Andre wrote:
> Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> > On Monday 11 September 2006 10:52 am, Steven Scholz wrote:
> > > 
> > > for an old embedded project I have to use an old compiler
> > > (2.95.4) thus I can't use busybox-1.2.
> > 
> > I'm not seeing gcc 2.95.4 on http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html, but
> > that does show that gcc 3.0 came out 5 years ago. I believe
> > previous conversations on this topic decided that 7 years is the
> > silliness event horizon for supporting old versions ...
> 
> "gcc 2.95.4" is quite likely to refer to the default compiler shipped
> with debian woody (the debian stable distribution one release
> previous to the current stable distribution). Very stable and well
> tested.

Ah.  "Debian stale".  Right.

> Active support was ended approx 4 years ago:
> 
> 
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95_2.95.4.ds13-11woody1/changelog

So why should we support it, when Debian itself doesn't?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list