Re: Adding gobjc as recommended by egcc
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 07:45:40PM -0400, Jamie Fifield wrote:
> > I was surprised to find that, as far as I can tell, gobjc is not noted
> > anywhere as connected to the egcc package. Anyone else think it should be
> > a "recommended" package of egcc?
> Why should it? Lots of people use C but not Objective C. I don't understand
> why a C compiler should recommend an Objective C one. Or did I
> misunderstand you?
Well, as far as I know, gcc has always provided the Objective C compiler
and appropriate headers. It seems to me that people will be upgrading
their egcs installation but may not necessarily be aware that they won't
get the Objective C stuff anymore now that the packages have split (as was
the case with me last night).
And as far as "recommended", I think perhaps a "suggested" link would be
quite fine, all I wanted to see was some sort of indication that I needed
to install additional packages to get the Objective C compiler (which is
what I wanted when I installed the latest egcc package anyway). It was
just an unanticipated problem that I had to deal with which may or may not
be necessary, and would have been avoided by listing gobjc as a suggested
package of egcc, (remembering you need it for compiling Gnome which is
drawing people to Debian).
As long as gobjc not being suggested by egcc is not an oversite, but a
conscious policy decision I'm happy, I just wanted to raise the issue for
Jamie Fifield <email@example.com>
Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging
an armored car to deliver credit-card information from someone
living in a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench.