From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26637 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 19:10:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 26630 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 19:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net) (207.172.4.62) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 19:10:47 -0000 X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaNd7NnmnysRWtNRKJramfgkomI4+ChueuYdGUVzFbYsN5SEwe9a2ZQ Received: from [12.46.110.44] (helo=cygwin.com) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 19UWiF-0001Gc-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:10:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3EF75042.5060104@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:16:00 -0000 From: Larry Hall Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shankar Unni CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Distribute gcc minus gcj? (was Re: Questions about Cygwin's "jar" command) References: <026f01c339b9$769a69f0$7e0aa8c0@HQSHANKAR> In-Reply-To: <026f01c339b9$769a69f0$7e0aa8c0@HQSHANKAR> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01113.txt.bz2 Shankar Unni wrote: > Larry Hall wrote: > > >>I know I shouldn't answer a question with a question but you >>intend this to be rhetorical, right? >> >>Never mind. I'll bite. If you or someone else is interested >>in providing a gcj package, I expect Chris would work with that >>person to avoid any package clash. > > > No, that wasn't what I meant. I was simply asking if it was possible for > (and acceptable to) cgf to drop "gcj" from the gcc package. (I.e. not > provide it at all). > > What I said was that *if* there was some cygwin user who actually was going > to use gcj for something "real"(TM), they would also be able to build it for > themselves. (I.e. I'm asserting that dropping gcj is not going to cause > anyone any major heartburn). Of course, all of this is Chris's decision however, since gcj was added in response to requests, I don't think it can be removed without some amount of noise on this list about it's disappearence. So I'm not sure your assertion holds, assuming the email archives on this subject are any inidication. I think the logical next step would be to make gcj a package, which is the approach Chris recommended IIRC. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/