Subject: Re: gcc3 deletion
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Patrick Welche <email@example.com>
Date: 11/21/2006 11:56:22
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:58:22PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> >firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
.. or "MKGFORTRAN=yes" in /etc/mk.conf?