build-essential

[John]

Steve Alexander wrote:

>
>> I think I have provided at least two "why" arguments:
>>
>> Why for me and other developer types: I will use it
>> Why for our current users: They have asked for it
>
>
> I fall into both of these categories of user.  I'll add that I don't 
> usually program in C.  I'm with Jeff.  I'd rather not have it in Desktop.
>
> I do use gcc as part of my work if I need to compile Python with 
> various debugging options, or I'm developing Python C extension code, 
> or fixing bugs in Python itself.
>
> If I need to install gcc on a system that has a packaging system that 
> installs binaries, I feel I have passed some sort of watershed.  I 
> have moved from "there's a team of people responsible for making sure 
> my machine isn't screwed up by what I install and uninstll" to "I'm on 
> my own now".
>
> If I install gcc for the Python development tasks I mentioned above, 
> I'd still be careful about compiling stuff and installing it when I 
> should be getting / making a deb.
>
> I welcome actively choosing to install a set of development tools.
>
I concur. I've just surveyed some of the opposition.
SuSE 9.0 Technology Preview (installed from a CD affixed to Linux User 
and Developer) does not have GCC
Fedora Core 3 test 1 does not have GCC.

These are both standard installs.


AFAIK both SuSE and RH are doing well in the marketplace. Whatever the 
geeks think, if there really was great demand for compilers and such to 
be part of the standard install in the user community, then these 
vendors would have it so.