Subject: Re: c++ vs. g++ front end
To: J.T. Conklin <>
From: Jason Downs <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/20/1996 14:05:06
In message <>,
	J.T. Conklin writes:
>> > The difference between the c++ and g++ front ends is that g++ includes
>> > libg++ in the link.  Since libg++ is distributed under the GNU General
>> > Public Licence, users might inadvertantly taint their own code if they
>> > use g++ to link their programs.
>> >
>> > I'd like to recommend that the default C++ compiler front end be
>> > changed from g++ to c++.
>> And which other library can be used as a replacement for libg++?
>There may be some confusion because what's distributed as libg++ by
>the FSF is actually several libraries: libg++, libio, libiostream, 
>and libstdc++.  These libraries are distributed with different 
>licences.  Libg++ itself is under the GPL.

...and never should have been placed under the GPL.

But it is, and deserves the respect due to any package lincenced under the

>In any case, I'm not suggesting that libg++ be removed, just that the
>default C++ compiler front end be "c++" instead of "g++" so that
>libg++ is not linked in to peoples executables inadvertantly.  Those
>who use libg++ can either add -lg++ or link with g++.

It might help if NetBSD distributed the TeXinfo documentation for GNU
software, and the utilities to read it.  There should have been a /usr/info 
(or, /usr/share/info with /usr/info being a symlink) a long time ago.  It has 
/usr/share/doc, after all.  If there's no reason to have /usr/share/info,
there shouldn't be any reason to have /usr/share/doc-- I know I use
/usr/share/doc a lot less then I use /usr/local/info.

Then such issues would have a better chance of being documented within the

(I find it particularly annoying when people distribute GNU software without
making the TeXinfo documentation clearly available; it has been done to
me too many times by Slackware and other Linux distributions.)

Jason Downs  --> Free Software for a Free Internet <--

			  Big Brother... Just say No.
	      No to unlimited wiretaps.  No to enforced `decency'.