Libraries disappearing from compat-libstdc++-296

[William M. Quarles]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Upstreams still building their binaries with GCC 2.95 (or 2.96 for that matter) 
> should really be told to get with the times. GCC is at 4.3 now, 2.95 is just a 
> long gone memory from the distant past.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, for some reason my Gmane.org feed 
wasn't showing the latest replies on this thread.

OK, Windows XP still runs nearly all programs from previous versions 
Windows, plus it has DOS emulation so that it can run many, but not all 
DOS programs. What is SO WRONG with some element of reverse 
compatibility? I know that some of you may feel that there is a hinder 
to progress there, but there has to be some kind of balance between 
bleeding-edge and interoperability with other software.

I'm not talking about a need to build new binaries, I'm just talking 
about getting older software to run on a newer OS. This doesn't just 
include commercial software such as Maple, but also older open-source 
projects that haven't been updated in a while, but could still 
hypothetically work if the proper libraries were provided.

William