is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

hiushoz · 2010-12-09 22:00:07

I see gcc. I see gcc-ada. I see gcc-objc. I see no gcc-c++ or gcc-cpp or gcc-cxx or gcc-cc.

Is it just me or is there no c++ compiler in the repos.

shacristo · 2010-12-09 22:03:52

g++ is the c++ compiler, it's in the gcc package.

Allan · 2010-12-09 22:06:53

hiushoz wrote:

Is it just me

Yes

hiushoz · 2010-12-09 22:48:11

ah
its's just back in mint
gcc came ootb but g++ was a separate package that had to be installed
perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere so other n00bs don't get confused
also why is it that packages fot ada and objc come separate they are after all all part of the GNU Compiler Collection as well it's rather inconsistent the way the packaging is done?
just curious what is going on?

Last edited by hiushoz (2010-12-09 22:50:03)

karol · 2010-12-09 23:13:43

hiushoz wrote:

just curious what is going on?

C and C++ are the standard languages, most commonly used, I guess.

Awebb · 2010-12-09 23:24:43

Next time try to figure it out like this:

find / | grep g++
pacman -Qo /usr/bin/g++

.:B:. · 2010-12-09 23:25:36

Mint is no reference, especially when Arch is concerned.

A logical explanation would be that gcc and g++ are included in one package because most of the code people compile on Linux systems nowadays is C/C++.

As for 'perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere', what's wrong wtih typing g++ in your terminal and see what comes out? It won't be nuclear launch codes.

karol · 2010-12-09 23:36:27

[karol@black ~]$ locate c++ | grep /usr/bin
/usr/bin/c++
/usr/bin/c++filt
/usr/bin/example_to_doc++
/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-c++
[karol@black ~]$ ls -al /usr/bin/c++
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 11-27 11:17 /usr/bin/c++ -> g++

ngoonee · 2010-12-10 00:14:40

hiushoz wrote:

perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere so other n00bs don't get confused

Welcome to Arch. After a bit I'm sure you'll figure out we don't do things that way around here, and you'll probably come to agree with it as well.

Allan · 2010-12-10 00:48:36

hiushoz wrote:

also why is it that packages fot ada and objc come separate they are after all all part of the GNU Compiler Collection as well it's rather inconsistent the way the packaging is done?

You need C and C++ to build a booting system. You do not need ada, objc, fortran etc.

drcouzelis · 2010-12-10 01:49:29

Allan wrote:

You do not need ada, objc, fortran etc.

...but Objective-C needs you...

fukawi2 · 2010-12-10 03:52:47

.:B:. wrote:

It won't be nuclear launch codes.

No, those would be @#^%@F$#feo34-$#QF;NO CARRIER.

hiushoz · 2010-12-10 05:41:09

ngoonee wrote:

hiushoz wrote:
perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere so other n00bs don't get confused
Welcome to Arch. After a bit I'm sure you'll figure out we don't do things that way around here, and you'll probably come to agree with it as well.

Ngoonee. While I agree with you on one level here's the thing. Not mentioning it on the gcc package description page would violate the Arch Way. After all is it that hard to change the package description from 'The GNU Compiler Collection' to "C and C++ compiler from the GNU Compiler Collection". The latter is concise and informative and takes the guesswork out of life and gives a simple, concise and unambiguous description. The status quo will leave users guessing needlessly. Is the Arch way that of openess, clarity, and simplicity or that of obscurity, guesswork, and frustration?

Btw I'm sorry if I sound critical or anything man. I appreciate the difficulty that goes into helping maintain a distribution even if it's just as a forum moderator. Nonetheless I truly feel this problem should be fixed because I'm far from the only one that has it. Google for 'arch linux c++ compiler' before you're done typing it will appear in the suggestions list. As a matter of fact right after you type the first + in the string. Also FYI this page has already been crawled and is the first result. People will read your response and notice that this contradicts the fundamental Arch philosophy of simplicity. They won't like it. See this is a minor problem but if you guys can't do small things right how do we users know you can do big things right. See these details matter. Before this switch to Arch I used Mint. I don't like the direction it is taking now but back in it's prime what attracted me was the well thought out design on both the macro and MICRO level. See these small problems can add up to a huge nuisance. Ambiguity serves no one. Just change the description please. Fix these small problems enough times and Arch will go to the NEXT LEVEL.

Anyway thx guys for the great distro. I just hope I'm man enough to handle it.

Last edited by hiushoz (2010-12-10 05:41:48)

.:B:. · 2010-12-10 08:53:06

If you find the package description lacking you can always file a bug report to have it changed .

Welcome to the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay (and Arch itself ).

ngoonee · 2010-12-10 09:09:23

hiushoz wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
hiushoz wrote:
perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere so other n00bs don't get confused
Welcome to Arch. After a bit I'm sure you'll figure out we don't do things that way around here, and you'll probably come to agree with it as well.
Ngoonee. While I agree with you on one level here's the thing. Not mentioning it on the gcc package description page would violate the Arch Way. After all is it that hard to change the package description from 'The GNU Compiler Collection' to "C and C++ compiler from the GNU Compiler Collection". The latter is concise and informative and takes the guesswork out of life and gives a simple, concise and unambiguous description. The status quo will leave users guessing needlessly. Is the Arch way that of openess, clarity, and simplicity or that of obscurity, guesswork, and frustration?

The Arch way isn't to spoon-feed. This particular issue interests you right now because you did not know this before. Arch isn't going to put notes everywhere just so those who don't know something can be informed, for that you can go to the afore-mentioned Mint.

hiushoz wrote:

Btw I'm sorry if I sound critical or anything man. I appreciate the difficulty that goes into helping maintain a distribution even if it's just as a forum moderator. Nonetheless I truly feel this problem should be fixed because I'm far from the only one that has it. Google for 'arch linux c++ compiler' before you're done typing it will appear in the suggestions list. As a matter of fact right after you type the first + in the string. Also FYI this page has already been crawled and is the first result. People will read your response and notice that this contradicts the fundamental Arch philosophy of simplicity. They won't like it. See this is a minor problem but if you guys can't do small things right how do we users know you can do big things right. See these details matter. Before this switch to Arch I used Mint. I don't like the direction it is taking now but back in it's prime what attracted me was the well thought out design on both the macro and MICRO level. See these small problems can add up to a huge nuisance. Ambiguity serves no one. Just change the description please. Fix these small problems enough times and Arch will go to the NEXT LEVEL.
Anyway thx guys for the great distro. I just hope I'm man enough to handle it.

Don't worry about being critical. You're still wrong though . The part I've bolded is unimportant, because almost nobody is going to notice. More to the point, it is irrelevant, because Arch is not about attracting some random Tom, Dick, or Mary. We don't sell anything, there's no marketing either.

Despite the apparent tone of my reply, I'm not trying to put you down. People have to start somewhere. Just please realize that that's exactly where you are, starting out, and that as you continue learning you won't think the same way you do now.

Allan · 2010-12-10 11:17:03

.:B:. wrote:

If you find the package description lacking you can always file a bug report to have it changed .

You could... but it would be assigned to me... so no need this time.

Hmmm... reading this I have noted that the description for gcc-libs is really wrong! I have fixed at least that.

bangkok_manouel · 2010-12-10 13:06:24

by the way Allan:

> pacman -Qi gcc | grep -i packager
Packager       : Unknown Packager

Allan · 2010-12-10 13:44:45

Yeah... I built the last gcc packages on the build server and it appears I did not have that set up correctly (I misspelt PACKAGER...). I have an updated toolchain sitting on my computer ready to upload in the next week so all will be fixed soon.

hiushoz · 2010-12-10 18:32:46

Ngoonee. I know Arch isn't about spoonfeeding. This isn't what I'm asking for. I just want to see things done sensibly. Believe me if I had the knowledge I'd simply make a distribution of my own. Until I get there I'm simply stating my thoughts on the matter and hoping you guys will take them into account. The point is the Arch way is that of simplicity, clarity, openess, and control, What I saw was needless obscurity. The current description for gcc is "The GNU compiler collection". OK fair enough but the name GNU Compiler Collection implies the whole collection. Where then is Objective-C, Java, Ada, Fortran, Go? The name must be informative. Is changing the description to "C and C++ compilers from the GNU Compiler Collection" really that much work. The status quo is inaccurate, confusing and blatantly against the Arch way. Furthermore Google what I told you. I'm far from the only one that has this problem.

Sorry if I sound bitchy but talking about issues openly and solving them sensibly including the small easy ones is imperative to the progress of FLOSS. The small problems must be solved before enough of them add up to a big one and Arch transforms into a half baked pile of steaming shit. Take C++ much like Arch it has the potential to be THE language. However it mocks us with useful features but in a half baked form. One example of many is this. What kind of class based OOP language doesn't support constructor chaining? My point exactly.

Also a final point I want to make is in Mint gcc and g++ came in separate packages. This way you could install one without the other taking diskspace. Of course having both in one nice package is convenient and I applaud you guys for that as I use both. I still feel however this contradicts the Arch Way as Arch is about control. This is just something you guys may want to think about changing as well but is of lesser importance.

karol · 2010-12-10 18:45:39

I'm with hiushoz on this one, although a one-liner would tell you what binary you need
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 08#p863908

.:B:. · 2010-12-10 18:52:06

Allan wrote:

Yeah... I built the last gcc packages on the build server and it appears I did not have that set up correctly (I misspelt PACKAGER...). I have an updated toolchain sitting on my computer ready to upload in the next week so all will be fixed soon.

But given this is a major emergency, I'm sure you'll push that toolchain pronto.

Right?

hiushoz · 2010-12-10 19:07:10

Karol. Thanks. It's truly refreshing to see someone think about these things rationally. As for your fix I didn't think of that unfortunately. While I know my way around the command line I'm not quite as experienced as you are in that respect. Hopefully I will learn. Stupidity is a sin. I'll do my best not to get caught red-handed again.

Allan · 2010-12-10 23:34:25

hiushoz wrote:

Also a final point I want to make is in Mint gcc and g++ came in separate packages. This way you could install one without the other taking diskspace. Of course having both in one nice package is convenient and I applaud you guys for that as I use both. I still feel however this contradicts the Arch Way as Arch is about control. This is just something you guys may want to think about changing as well but is of lesser importance.

Splitting packages is actually more against the Arch way. I'm more than happy to go back to one gcc package...

gorudonu · 2010-12-11 01:14:37

karol wrote:

[karol@black ~]$ locate c++ | grep /usr/bin
/usr/bin/c++
/usr/bin/c++filt
/usr/bin/example_to_doc++
/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-c++
[karol@black ~]$ ls -al /usr/bin/c++
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 11-27 11:17 /usr/bin/c++ -> g++

why not:

whereis g++

easier to remember

karol · 2010-12-11 01:17:33

gorudonu wrote:

karol wrote:

[karol@black ~]$ locate c++ | grep /usr/bin
/usr/bin/c++
/usr/bin/c++filt
/usr/bin/example_to_doc++
/usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-c++
[karol@black ~]$ ls -al /usr/bin/c++
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 11-27 11:17 /usr/bin/c++ -> g++

why not:

whereis g++

easier to remember

I'm looking for a c++ compiler, I don't know it's called g++ - that's why :-)
I wanted to show that you can find things just by looking for them ;P

Arch Linux

#1 2010-12-09 22:00:07

is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#2 2010-12-09 22:03:52

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#3 2010-12-09 22:06:53

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#4 2010-12-09 22:48:11

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#5 2010-12-09 23:13:43

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#6 2010-12-09 23:24:43

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#7 2010-12-09 23:25:36

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#8 2010-12-09 23:36:27

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#9 2010-12-10 00:14:40

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#10 2010-12-10 00:48:36

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#11 2010-12-10 01:49:29

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#12 2010-12-10 03:52:47

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#13 2010-12-10 05:41:09

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#14 2010-12-10 08:53:06

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#15 2010-12-10 09:09:23

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#16 2010-12-10 11:17:03

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#17 2010-12-10 13:06:24

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#18 2010-12-10 13:44:45

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#19 2010-12-10 18:32:46

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#20 2010-12-10 18:45:39

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#21 2010-12-10 18:52:06

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#22 2010-12-10 19:07:10

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#23 2010-12-10 23:34:25

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#24 2010-12-11 01:14:37

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

#25 2010-12-11 01:17:33

Re: is it just me or does arch not have a c++ compiler in the repos?

Board footer