Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: None <>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/17/2003 12:52:45
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Todd Vierling wrote:

> Building the Java bits requires building the C and C++ bits in full, so a
> "full gcc3" package *will* conflict with a "non-java gcc3" package.

I haven't tried separating this myself (also do to time). But I see that
Debian provides a separate gcj package that depends on other packages that
are from gcc3 too (like libgcc1 and gcc-3).

Even if building the Java parts requires building the C and C++ parts too,
does that mean that they have to be installed too? Can't it just depend
on the smaller gcc3 (minus Java parts) package?

> Again, how about a "pkgtools/gcc3"  for the stripped down version and leave
> the full version to work as gcc3 "normally" builds?

In another posting, fredb says "My idea to strip out Java, however has
been shot down". Is this idea really dead?

(I want a smaller package for my systems with little space.)

   Jeremy C. Reed