Re: intentional bootstrap requirements

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 10:17:31PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:46:18AM +0000, nia wrote:
>  > ideas:
>  > 
>  > - explicitly document that c99 is needed for bootstrap,
>  >   c11 or more recent versions should not be used in
>  >   packages that are in the bootstrap chain
> 
> Seems like a good plan, given that it's already the state of the
> world.
> 
>  > - remove gcc2 and references to pre-c99 compilers,
>  >   as well as ability to specify dependencies for
>  >   pre-c99 compilers.
> 
> My inclination would be to hold on to the gcc2 package, mostly because
> there's 1500 lines of patches in it, those have at least some value,
> at least a couple aren't trivial, and there's no other good place to
> keep them. It's not inconceivable that someone might want to use gcc2
> as a steppingstone to build something else.

Since GCC tends to be unwilling to actually enforce strict standards,
being able to test software with old compilers is a useful feature
for developers.

However, gcc2 is failing in *every single* bulk build available.
It's not available on ftp.nb.org at all, so I'd recommend those
patches just being archived in the attic.