AW: yes or no?

Matthias Benkmann matthias at winterdrache.de
Fri May 17 06:21:21 PDT 2002


On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:10:29 +0000 (UTC) jyork at localhost.localdomain
wrote:

> > Well, I don't vote for Ada, but I vote for a paragraph which explains,
> > which languages
> > are avaiable for gcc and how to build gcc with fortran, java, and so
> > on...(--with-languages is a pretty thing...) and why we build gcc with
> > only c and c++ compilers.
> >
> 
> Another option would be to add this to the blfs book under optimizing
> gcc ... since the majority of users won't need this just as they don't
> need extra compilers.

The problem is that people usually read BLFS after building LFS. It's not
nice if the BLFS book tells people that by following the regular LFS book
people have maneuvered themselves into a dead end Ada-wise. A dead end
they can only escape by downloading a precompiled GCC which is basically a
throwback to chapter 5. Besides, it's non an optimization.

MSB

-- 
Where...the ENIAC is equipped with 18000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons,
computers in the future may have 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh just
1-1/2 tons.

Popular Mechanics, March 1949, p.258

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list