Ada: yes or no?

Nicholas Dille darkyeti at
Fri May 17 07:41:10 PDT 2002

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 04:06:19PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> As I've said already I believe that telling people about this option and
> leaving the choice up to them is doing more harm than good.  So far we
> haven't seen "I can't compile Ada, what's up?" or "This package says it
> needs Ada, how do I get it?" questions on the list. This tells me that
> there is no need for a pointer to the Ada hint in the book. We're seeing a
> lot of questions answered by other hints we don't refer to in the book.
> Why add a pointer to a hint that people don't ask for? By doing this we
> only confuse people. They will attach more importance to this issue than
> there is. If you don't want to add Ada for philosophy's sake, then don't
> add anything.

although i currently do not need ada i don't like the idea of being
stuck without it at the time when i need it!

but i think people have a right to know if the authors
block them using ada. they might not know whether they will need it but
they will get a chance to decide. otherwise they will end up angry with
the authors for not telling them that using lfs is a one-way street in
regard to ada.

i strongly support putting a note right next to gcc explaining what
might happen as well as some lines helping them to decide.
that together with the ada hint which describes how to replace your
current gcc with an "ada-enabled gcc" should suffice.
most users should be urged not to include ada but they need to see an
upgrade path in case they stumble across an ada package some time in the

just my two cents,

rakshas at quietude / 7793747 / rakshas dot de
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list