Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:44:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing Objc Message-ID: <20000627114456.A60692@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200006271735.e5RHZ0610440@orthanc.ab.ca>; from lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:35:00AM -0600 References: <200006271508.IAA17811@vashon.polstra.com> <200006271735.e5RHZ0610440@orthanc.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:35:00AM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Two questions come to mind: > 1) How much disk bloat is eliminated by removing objc from the base? Probably not much. > 2) How much bloat is regained by installing it as a port? More. > #2 is my main concern. Would I have to bootstrap/install XX MB of egcs from > ports to get objc? "Yes" if you want the GNU version. "No" if you want the other implimentation. The Question that should come to mind is *why* is it in the base system. And why should we spend the time during a `make world' to build it? People generally want a faster buildworld, and I've only received one ObjC question in 1.5 years. So I wonder how many people use it. I don't care much one way or the other. But these are questions others seem to be asking. Notice that I have not brought in the Java compiler that is part of the new GCC 2.95. Nor would I bring in the Ada compiler or Pascal compiler when they become part of GCC (which now stands for GNU Compiler Collection, note the all caps now). -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000627114456.A60692>