On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:11:01 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: [...] > (On a related note, do we really need gcc 2.95.3-r10, 3.3.6-r1, 3.4.6-r2, > 4.0.4, 4.1.2, 4.2.4-r1, 4.3.6-r1, 4.4.7, 4.5.1-r1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3-r2, 4.5.4, > 4.6.0, 4.6.1-r1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2-r1, 4.7.3-r1, > 4.7.4, > 4.8.0, 4.8.1-r1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and (deep breath) 4.9.2?
Yes, we do. There is a lot of software out there which needs specific gcc version. E.g. I have fortran code which depends gcc:3.4. Other example are cuda implementations which usually lag behind mainstream gcc by one middle version. And please don't say "just fix it", some of such software is binary, some other is too large to be updated regularly. While one year support is a good policy for a common packages, it is in no way an upper limit for support and core packages should be considered carefully here. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpyR6iNHgt9R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
