Re: gcc as optional
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, A Mennucc1 wrote:
> > I here propose that gcc (and companions) become "Priority: optional"
If you want a minimal setup run "cdebootstrap" to install packages. It
goes by Priorities and dependencies and installs way less
packages. Esspecially nice for a snuck chroot.
> A similar decision was made for TeX and emacs some time ago, because
> they grew so much that not being them standard made a really big
> I think gcc is much more important than TeX and emacs and it's not so
> "bloated", so to speak. You can create documents with a lot of
> different systems, and you can edit files with a lot of different
> editors, but IMHO, there are not so many different C compilers that we
> have to take gcc out of standard (yes, I know there are other free
> compilers, but for practical purposes gcc is THE compiler).
> The number of people not using the task system that would have to
> install gcc by hand after installing the default packages would be a
> lot greater than the number of people who currently deinstall gcc
> because of being shortof space, so I don't think making gcc optional
> would be a good idea.
apt-get install build-essential (which you still have to do even with
So remove it or not. For a developer that doesn't realy make a
> What we can do is not to repeat what we did in woody, when we shipped
> two different gcc releases of standard priority (gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.0).
gcc 3.2 and 3.3 is shipped.