Ada: yes or no?
darkyeti at gmx.net
Fri May 17 08:26:27 PDT 2002
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:49:46PM +0100, Jamie Bennett wrote:
> >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!
> No LFS'er is stuck without ada. A recompile of gcc will fix that.
which isn't as easy as simply recompiling (please refer to the ada hint
> >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 don't think that the authors intended to block ada users they just
> decided not to include it. At some point you must draw the line at
> what is included in the base system and to include something that is
> rarely used and easily added isn't a good idea.
... and i did not say that the authors are indeed blocking anybody.
all i intended to say is that now that ada is included in gcc3 we need
to think about the consequences of compiling gcc with c and c++ support
in chapter 5 and 6.
now that it is known that ada isn't that easy to add later on we cannot
ignore the fact that some users might get angry for _not_ pointing out that
installing ada at some later is not achieved by simply recompiling gcc
because of the circular dependency of ada.
in short, in my opinion it is simply not honest to not mention the fact
in the book and providing a way out (--> the ada hint).
that's why i vote for including a note about the ada "issue" in the book
which describes the problem _and_ points to a solution. in addition it
should explain that users who do not know what this is all about do not
need to include ada as they will have a proper path along which to
update their system to be able to use ada (the hint again).
hope that clarifies my position.
rakshas at quietude / 7793747 / rakshas dot de
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