🚀 go-pugleaf

keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca writes:
>
> Since gcc-lib is included in gcc-2.3.2 why not include g++-lib
> in future releases of gcc.  This would make installation of gcc 
> much easier.
>

problem is the size of the source.  this would be a massive package.
for those not interested in c++, this size might be a real hindrance,
particularly on systems with limited space.

although, perhaps one approach would be to have two gcc packages, one
with libg++ and one without.  the way libg++ is distributed, seems
like this would be rather easy to facilitate.  the configure step
could apply to both.  with libg++, it almost looks like this might be
an eventual goal.  could this be the case?

-- 
amos@unt.edu                   Amos A. Gouaux                   (817) 565-4161
-= Academic Computing Services, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. =-

>keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca writes:
>>
>> Since gcc-lib is included in gcc-2.3.2 why not include g++-lib
>> in future releases of gcc.  This would make installation of gcc 
>> much easier.

This doesn't make any sense... gcc-lib isn't an equivalent of libg++,
glibc is... and it isn't included either.  Besides, how would packaging
the two together simplify installation?  What you really want is for the
gcc distribution to use the Cygnus GNU-tools directory layout, and that
will presumably happen one of these days.  But they still shouldn't be
packaged in a single tar file... that would be rediculous.
-- 
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA