Ada: yes or no?

Erika Pacholleck pacholleck at
Sat May 18 06:11:39 PDT 2002

[17.05.2002] Matthias Benkmann <-- :
> On Thu, 16 May 2002 19:23:39 -0400 Gerard Beekmans
> <gerard at> wrote:
> > But I also feel morally obliged to at least _somehow_ provide means to
> > get your Ada if you need it. I'm thinking about an Ada-hint written and
> > simply add a line in the book:
> 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.

Shorty from my side regarding this matter, I fully agree to Matthias.

People needing ada will mostly be more experienced,
more experienced people know how to find the hints.
If binaries will ease compiling, put them onto ftp.

No need for a sentence in the book, unless you want
to force mails like "in gcc chapter you point to ..
you should do the same in chapter ..."

Personally I never downloaded a full gcc but only core and g++ and I
will continue with that. Same as I avoid installing all those other
languages just because one program needs it (simply cause my LFS should
be a real alternate to those full blows).
Erika ...---...: pacholleck at nexgo 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