Why is 2.95 still around?

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]

On 11/10/05, Marc Wilson <msw at cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > I'm curious why gcc-2.95 or even gcc-3.3 is still in the archives? Is
> > there a mistrust for newer stuff or something related to stability as
> > is the case with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? Thanks...
>
> What's the reason for your question?  Is there a reason why these compilers
> should not be available?  Nothing forces you to use them, if you do not
> want to.

I thought that newer compilers ought to better than the older ones
(latest and greatest); I wanted to know if these older compilers are
widely used and therefore people having mistrust for newer stuff; I
assumed all packages in debian had to be recompiled with either
version 4.0 or 3.4. I don't dislike these compilers and want to know
from those with experience (which I lack) what's their views.
Thanks...

> Myself, as long as the recommended kernel compiler continues to be 2.95, it
> will have a place on my box.

I didn't know this...