Subject: Re: gcc3 deletion
To: None <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/07/2006 12:58:22
On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> email@example.com said:
>> The above questions I think are rather an answer to why should we add
> I'm not advocating against fortran, but since gcc also supports
> ada and java now, we need to draw a line somewhere. Which could be
> "we need it to build a program in the tree", leaving just c and c++.
> Or "the former, and everything which is lightweight", which would
> add objc and fortran.
I would like to see us keep at least ObjC and Fortran, both of which
have been historically included with NetBSD.
> Having the ada support in the tree would be worthwhile
> because bootstrapping it is hard and it could benefit a lot from a
> reachover makefile structure. Don't know about the usefulness of
> gcc-java. Both would increase system build time significantly.
I can also see value in having Ada, for the reason you cite.
Actually, it's tricker than this, though... because you need an Ada
compiler to build the Ada compiler, this would make cross-building
from non-NetBSD hosts more difficult (gotta bootstrap the Ada compiler
Gcj I would add just for completeness.
Basically, I would like us to be at the point where users can add
"development environment" and "run-time" support for various languages
easily as sets (or syspkgs or whatever), with the default C and C++
run-time always being installed with the base system.
> best regards