Ada: yes or no?

jyork at jyork at
Sat May 18 09:57:24 PDT 2002

I think it makes sense that we only install gcc-core gcc=g++, since these are
 what is required to build the LFS packages. It reduces build time for those 
who don't need the extra's and reduces bandwidth on shadowfax which i know has 
been a concern for g. Also as for mentioning this in the book I don't think 
it's really necessary, I do think any mention of this will cause undue posts 
to support channels as people who don't need it try and install it. 
This would be a perfect option for an Appendix B. Entry in the book.

my 2 cents

-Juan York <reb0rn>

In article <20020518131139.GA497 at>, Erika Pacholleck wrote:
> [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