<div dir="ltr">Have you ever heard about project budgets and that updating a toolchain requires a lot of testing, and hence time, money, man power?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Paul Barker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul@paulbarker.me.uk" target="_blank">paul@paulbarker.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 29 July 2013 11:42, Laszlo Papp <<a href="mailto:lpapp@kde.org">lpapp@kde.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> Not to mention, you would cause a "runtime" issue which is pretty simple to<br>
> fix for a very minor portion compared to a *large* user base using older<br>
> toolchains. There is a huge difference between a few people cannot use<br>
> rfkill for those applications (2, ridiculous), and that a slightly old<br>
> toolchain cannot even build the *whole* project.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Is there any reason that you need to use such an old toolchain? We<br>
can't expect everything we have to compile with every toolchain<br>
release since the start of the GNU project so we need to draw the line<br>
somewhere. I think the feeling is that we'd draw the line somewhere<br>
after the toolchain you're using (from 2009 IIRC).<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Paul Barker<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:paul@paulbarker.me.uk">paul@paulbarker.me.uk</a><br>
<a href="http://www.paulbarker.me.uk" target="_blank">http://www.paulbarker.me.uk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>