Okay, I am convinced that importing gcc 2.95.2 would be useful. However..

> Actually, I'm modifying it to be
> src/gnu/usr.bin/gcc-2.95/{dist,cc1,gcc,etc}.  The separation *away from*
> src/gnu/dist as a shared dist directory addresses two points:
> 
> - Last time egcs was imported, people bitched because of how big the source
>   tree was with two compilers in-tree.  This will allow someone to nuke the
>   whole compiler in one shot, or exclude it from CVS updates with a single
>   operation.  If you recall, the old gcc 2.7 was in
>   src/gnu/usr.bin/gcc (though it didn't use a dist directory).

That is true, but not enough reason to be inconsistent with the current
scheme, I think.

> 
> - This keeps the BSD makefiles a little closer to the dist tree, which is
>   what a lot of other software already does in the tree.  gnu/dist is,
>   IMHO, a good idea for certain things (were binutils and gcc to work
>   together nicely), but not for some of the things we've put in there,
>   such as gawk and sed.  In retrospect, these programs should have had
>   their own `dist' directories.

Could you give an example of how binutils and gcc previously "worked
together", but how this won't work if you put gcc 2.95.x in there?
I would really prefer it if gcc 2.95.x is imported in a way consistent
with other GNU distributions.

- Frank