Well, for me, it's a vast number of boxes deployed and often maintained by
others that are running stabling for 8+ years making the nuance of upgrading
to a newer version of GCC fairly mute from a lay persons perspective.
Seriously, how can you argue with a non-technical user that their box
installed in 2001 has a "problem" when everything is working "fine"?
Plus it annoys Timo and that's just an extra bonus ;-)
regards,
KAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Asheesh Laroia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dovecot Mailing List" <dovecot@dovecot.org>
Cc: "Kevin A. McGrail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sven Anderson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Follow-up re: gcc 2.96 - Re: PATCH: compile
dovecot-1.1.beta14 with gcc 2.95
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I can't argue with that logic but documenting it in a wiki or INSTALL or
including the patches with the distribution might be more agreeable.
Why are you people still using so old gcc versions?
As an observer, I'd like to remark that it's amazing that
twentiety-century known-broken non-releases
<http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html> of GCC are in use in 2008.
I'm honestly curious what keeps you guys on them.
-- Asheesh.
--
Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.
