Ada: yes or no?

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Sat May 18 10:11:31 PDT 2002

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:51:06PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> Well, we could just install gcc-core and gcc-c++ - then ada is out of
> the picture... AND the download would be smaller...

While I agree that would be a nice thing to do (download and installation
fuss wise), I still have to consider the fact that packages we use with LFS
are always fully installed, all features enabled unless the fully featured
option isn't feasible for various reasons, but we then point it out (see
current gcc note that we only do C and C++ compilers). But other than that,
we always install everything a package has to offer where it makes sense
(see some of the TEX stuff we install from a package even if TEX isn't
installed on the system, it's part of the package, we include the
installation, now you decide whether you need it, but at least you know
it exists). I feel obliged to do the same with this Ada issue.

However, we don't specifically mention Fortran, Objective-C and other
languages the GCC package provides. We just say there's more and refer to
the docs to get all the extra info. I don't see a need to mention Ada
explicitly by name. But I do recognize the Ada installation can be somewhat
difficult if not complicated and having an Ada-hint at would be a nice thing just like we
have hints for just about anything else.

So I think we've narrowed it down to this one single question:

Do we, or do we not, refer to the Ada-hint (when it's written, it currently
doesn't exist yet) on the GCC installation pages. I recognize Matthias'
point that it will create a lot of confusion most likely and people just
going to install Ada since they don't know what it is and just want it for
the sake of wanting it.

The argument that we don't mention any other hints in the book: that is
actually about to change. There are hints that follow-up on some of the
base LFS installations. Some are mentioned (editors hints, the shadow hint
to complement the shadow package installation) some aren't.

Yes, I also realize that mentioning more hints will create more traffic on
the lfs-support list if there are problems with those hints that are now
more integrated with the book. But to discover a hint after the
installation and then having to redo the installation of a package can be
seen as a waste of time, especially if you simply weren't aware of that
hint but do want whatever the hint deals with.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
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