> BTW I imagine that if our tree didn't have C++ code in it (groff is it I
> think)  We probably wouldn't ship the C++ version of gcc.  Maybe that will
> help clarify the point.

I'd say that this is correct.

getting rid of g++ would be wonderful...  no more need for g++,
libg++, include/g++, etc...  and, of course, the fact that something
that uses g++ exists in the tree means that any port also has to get
g++ (and groff) working, for it to be considered "fully functional."


"ick."


cgd