Re: should we drop gcc3 support ?

Hi Eric and Christian,

so MacOSX is out of the picture with gcc-3.3 as well. Good. Now we just 
need a word from the *BSD side regarding gcc-3.4.

My proposal still stands:

- gcc-4.x.x is supported

- gcc-3.3 is not longer supported, patches aren't any longer accepted

- gcc-3.4 is deprecated, patches will be accepted up to including 
OOO330. Build breakers can't be flagged as "Prio 1", fixes will have to 
come from the port maintainers using this obsolete version as most 
developers will not have a way to fix or even to verify the build problem.

If I hear nothing in to the contrary for a week or so, I'll officially 
announce this as new policy regarding gcc support.

Thanks
    Heiner

Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Hi *,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM, eric b <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Le 1 oct. 09 à 12:43, Jens-Heiner Rechtien a écrit :
>>>> Aqua-OOo is not supported on Mac OS X 10.3 - at least I don't know
>>>> anyone who ever did an aqua build that would run on 10.3.
>>> So dropping gcc-3.3 would only affect X11-MacOSX. Is that one still
>>> relevant at all?
>> In fact, nobody knows really : the X11 version is no longer maintained.
> 
> Yes, and I don't know a signle reason why anyone would want to use an
> X11 version instead of the aqua version.
> So it is in my opinion not relevant at all.
> 
>>> Does it still work?
>> Maybe it's possible to build it using gcc 4.0.1. Not tested since a long
>> while :)
>>
>> My humble opinion is:  I got tiger on several machines. Tiger is the oldest
>> maintained version,  and gcc 4.0.1 is the one shipped with.
> 
> Fully agree - on mac 4.0.1 is the baseline, gcc 3.x is not needed at all
> 
> ciao
> Christian
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
>