quote:

---

> I here propose that gcc (and companions) become "Priority: optional"

---

quote:

---

> I here propose that gcc (and companions) become "Priority: optional"

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, A Mennucc1 wrote:
>

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.
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> 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
> difference.
>
> 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.

---

quote:

---

> 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).

---

quote:

---

>
> On 2004-01-27 12:54 +0100, A Mennucc1 wrote:
>
>
>
> I second that. I often install Debian on routers and firewalls (of the
> class Pentium 60 with 400 MB HD), and the first thing I always have to
> do is to get rid of this bunch of development tools. Also, the
> computer of my girlfriend does not need a compiler and so do many
> workstations.

---

quote:

---

> No. One of our power is the sources, let user install programs (and
> kernels), from sources easy.

---

quote:

---

> On routers and firewall you will remove alot more programs,
> so removing also gcc don't make a big difference.

---

quote:

---

> No. One of our power is the sources, let user install programs (and
> kernels), from sources easy.

---

quote:

---

> On routers and firewall you will remove alot more programs,
> so removing also gcc don't make a big difference.

---

quote:

---

> "USE THE SOURCES!"

---

quote:

---

> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
>
> gcc 3.2 and 3.3 is shipped.

---

quote:

---

> 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.

---

quote:

---

> Martin Pitt wrote:
>
> No. One of our power is the sources, let user install programs (and
> kernels), from sources easy.

---

quote:

---

> On routers and firewall you will remove alot more programs,
> so removing also gcc don't make a big difference.

---

quote:

---

> I think we should not to do things by halves. When such service
> (pre-installed compiler) is provided for the users, it should also be
> ready for basic tasks (compile kernel modules or a new kernel, for
> example). I think this all should be moved into an extra task.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>
> No, only gcc-3.3 is standard. gcc-3.2 is optional, so we are
> fortunately not repeating what we did in woody.

---

quote:

---

> 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.

---

quote:

---

>
> Well, I think this is a strong "geek-minded" point of view...:-).
>
> In these days, people who really need a C compiler a a Unix machine,
> especially a workstation, is lowering.

---

quote:

---

> All these people do indeed know how to install gcc easily (Goswin
> mentioned "apt-get install build-essentials").

---

quote:

---

> This is why I support Andrea proposal, which should indeed be
> reported as a bug against the gcc package(s).

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Compiling a kernel is not `a basic task'. Compiling userspace programs,
> however, might be.

---

quote:

---

>As a side note, I have found this:
>gcc (and companions) has "Priority: standard" ;
>this means that, unless the user goes into dselect and deselects all
>of them, it always gets installed; in particular, if the user is low
>on space, this can be annoying
>
>I here propose that gcc (and companions) become "Priority: optional"
>
>rationale is that many users can work on Debian without compiling anything;
>moreover tasksel has a " [ ] C and C++ " line, that is almost
>useless, since gcc is installed nonetheless

---

quote:

---

> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
>
> Depending on the arch. hppa still uses 3.2, right? Is gcc-3.2 realy
> removed from debootstraps list on all archs that have gcc-3.3
> included?

---

quote:

---

> Also, if you're going to demote gcc, you should also demote binutils, bin86,
> bison, flex, gdb, make, and rcs, all of which are of about equal utility --

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Compiling a kernel is not `a basic task'. Compiling userspace programs,
> however, might be.

---

quote:

---

> Hi!
>
> On 2004-01-28 8:44 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
>
>
> I fully agree :-)

---

quote:

---

> I see GNU/Linux and Debian as the "batteries included"[1] OS,
> so the os that include already the most used programs, and
> *I* consider gcc an importan program to include.

---

quote:

---

> Clinging to sanity, Giacomo A. Catenazzi mumbled in his beard:
>
>
> Well, *I* consider kmail and jpilot important programs to include, so would
> somebody please promote them to Standard, or better yet Essential. This
> argumentation leads nowhere.
>
> I hear that more and more users in areas like Brazil, China, Pakistan, ...
> are using Linux and especially Debian - and in those areas, 28.8k Modems
> are still new and shiny, sometimes for an entire school. So making a
> standard installation of Debian smaller is IMHO a worthwile goal.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>
> No, only gcc-3.3 is standard. gcc-3.2 is optional, so we are
> fortunately not repeating what we did in woody.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Compiling a kernel is not `a basic task'. Compiling userspace programs,
> however, might be.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Compiling a kernel is not `a basic task'. Compiling userspace programs,
> however, might be.

---