From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18491 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 20:36:47 -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 27830 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 20:25:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Saruman.local) (217.228.133.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 20:25:47 -0000 Received: from t-online.de (Sauron.local [192.168.42.1]) by Saruman.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C79930674C1 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3EF76248.7050306@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:10:00 -0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_Sch=F6nhaber?= Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 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/msg01115.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). If you're using jar for something "real", it should be much easier for you to simply rm jar.exe from /usr/bin than it is for others to build gcj from scratch. I can't see any at least moderately good reason for castrating a package just to avoid a "problem" that can be solved by a simple rm or a change in PATH. Regards mks -- 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/