From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16443 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2006 19:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16430 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Mar 2006 19:39:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from adsl-216-102-199-253.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO cupertino.bothner.com) (216.102.199.253) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:39:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([192.168.1.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by cupertino.bothner.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2VJdQIA023355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0800 Message-ID: <442D856D.8020107@bothner.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:39:00 -0000 From: Per Bothner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bryce McKinlay CC: Gcc Patch List , Java Patch List Subject: Re: Patch: Remove fastjar References: <200603302329.k2UNT0mU007455@earth.phy.uc.edu> <1143763021.5220.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <442C77DA.5090602@bothner.com> <1143803338.4849.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <442D63EF.9030006@redhat.com> <442D6630.4050005@bothner.com> <442D8299.4030307@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <442D8299.4030307@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 Bryce McKinlay wrote: > Per Bothner wrote: >> One could argue it's a cleanup: We remove some code duplication. > > Yeah, I agree with that - a Java implementation of jar would be better. > But, surely the removal of fastjar should follow once a replacement is > ready. Stallman might reasonably argue that removing fastjar provides motivation to do the job. And we're not really "removing" fastjar; we're making it an external dependency - the way (say) ar is. Logically jar doesn't belong in gcc any more than ar does - at least not as long as fastjar doesn't make use of gcc headers or libraries. A rewritten jar that is just a thin wrapper over java.util.jar *might* be a different matter. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/