From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8538 invoked by alias); 11 May 2009 17:33:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 8507 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2009 17:33:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_83,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.155) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 May 2009 17:33:43 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 13so1069119fge.5 for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 10:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.65.18 with SMTP id n18mr6798540fga.25.1242063219605; Mon, 11 May 2009 10:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm4861130fga.15.2009.05.11.10.33.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 11 May 2009 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A08641E.4000108@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:33:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley CC: Dave Korn , java@gcc.gnu.org, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [JAVA,libtool] Big libjava is biiiig. References: <4A01B55C.6060700@gmail.com> <4A01B621.7020609@gmail.com> <4A01BD26.30707@redhat.com> <4A01C128.2020500@gmail.com> <4A01C4EB.4070408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A01C4EB.4070408@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 Andrew Haley wrote: > Here's a starter list of non-core packages: > > gnu/CORBA By the time I got done annotating all those packages with "non-core" in makemake.tcl, it looked like the rule is "all packages of style 'bc' or 'bcheader'", is that correct? I'd rather infer the list of non-core packages from the existing annotations if it is correct to do so. cheers, DaveK