| 18 Dec 2025 |
 bake.monorail | I'll take a look | 13:25:42 |
| bake.monorail | keeping old compilers building is not so hard, in my experience is just some new compiler error, nothing incredibly hard to patch. it's also useful for bootstrapping systems. I think it'd be valuable.
but yeah, it takes some effort. I'm curious about what features cc-wrapper needs. in my understanding it's just adding a bunch of compiler flags, but I didn't look too hard into it. | 13:29:04 |
 matthewcroughan | I mean, the reason anything would get dropped is because it's not working, so if you don't want to drop it you could just make PRs | 13:29:35 |
| bake.monorail | are you sure? AFAIU there's a policy about dropping end-of-life'd compilers. I don't think they necessarily "do not work" | 13:30:21 |
| matthewcroughan | like if it's an esoteric compiler/stdenv you're talking about I'm sure that's fine, as long as someone's maintaining it | 13:30:23 |
| matthewcroughan | otherwise if it's like gccX where X is old, then no | 13:30:41 |
| matthewcroughan | you can't keep everything always forever, that's what you use old releases of nixpkgs for | 13:31:02 |
| matthewcroughan | and then you can maintain that in your own repo, with your own overlays, if you're truly serious about it | 13:31:16 |
| matthewcroughan | If it's "not that hard" as you say, then why not just keep an overlay? Not that hard either? | 13:31:55 |
