Baslinux mailing list

[baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org]

> From ruario's blog and my.opera.com:

>   What the numbers mean - gcc3/4
>
>   The first major change: No more gcc295 packages, only gcc3 and gcc4. These 
> numbers refer to the GNU Compiler Collection
>   used to build the various packages. More specifically they refer to gcc 
> 2.95, gcc 3.x and gcc 4.x. We included the
>   number in the package name as it gives a clue as to what version of a 
> distro we support with each package. We could
>   write it another way such as: modern (gcc4), old (gcc3) and ancient (295), 
> but the number is actually more useful as it
>   gives a more precise idea of what version of a distro is supported. If you 
> take your own distro you can find out what
>   version of gcc is provided by your distro vendor and this in turn will give 
> you are fairly good idea what package is
>   the right one for you. A great way to check this is actually to use 
> [33]distrowatch.com. On each distro specific page
>   it tells you which version of key software (including gcc) is included with 
> each version of the distro. Look up your
>   distro, then look up the version you use and note the gcc number. Now you 
> know if you need a gcc4, gcc3 or even gcc295
>   build!
>
>   Looking through these lists on distrowatch, plus Linux vendor sites and 
> support forums, it soon becomes clear why we
>   dropped gcc295. You can't find any currently supported distro that would 
> need gcc295. Indeed it is quite hard to find a
>   modern and vendor supported distro that actually uses gcc3 or lower. Damn 
> Small Linux is one of the few, though I
>   wouldn't be suprised if they move to a more recent version of gcc with the 
> next release. As such the effort we put in
>   to ensuring Opera can compile under gcc 2.95 simply isn't worth it anymore. 
> Our general rule of thumb is to support
>   popular distros for at least as long as the vendor or group that supports 
> that distro does. I have heard arguments from
>   users that they keep using old distros for pure speed and the ability to 
> run on very basic hardware, hence they need
>   the old builds. But to me this argument doesn't ring entirely true. It is 
> possible to run a small, fast distro, that is
>   also modern. A great demonstration of this is Puppy Linux or TinyCore but 
> equally something as modular as Arch can help
>   you strip away the fat leaving you with a lean, mean yet modern distro! And 
> more importantly you will be running
>   something that has received security updates!
>
>   Before moving on to the next topic, I wanted to give a further 
> clarification: any distro with at least gcc3.4.* will
>   actually work with the gcc4 builds. That is because the key change of files 
> we depend on actually changed at gcc3.4.*,
>   not gcc4! Hence Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.8 (and Centos 4.8) will work 
> with gcc4 builds despite listing gcc 3.4.6 on
>   distrowatch.com.
>
>   Note: Another way to look at this is that distros needing gcc295 are so old 
> that libstdc++ cannot be reasonably
>   depended upon, gcc3 distros are too old to have libstdc++.so.6 but do have 
> libstdc++.so.5, and gcc4 are distros that
>   are modern enough to provide libstdc++.so.6.

gcc295 implies that you have the Slackware 8.1 glibc 2.2.5 and other 
similar-age libraries, for instance, since SW81 comes with gcc 2.95.3. 
Sindi