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" asheesh@asheesh.org To: "Dovecot Mailing List" dovecot@dovecot.org Cc: "Kevin A. McGrail" kmcgrail@pccc.com; "Sven Anderson" sven@anderson.de 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.