From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Faylor To: Tom Tromey Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: What to do about zlib... Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000330200834.A29622@cygnus.com> References: <20000330172618.A29064@cygnus.com> <200003302255.OAA02020@ferrule.cygnus.com> <20000330193356.B29634@cygnus.com> <200003310055.QAA02083@ferrule.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00131.html Message-ID: <20000330170800.LaK6eTn0VqvFCPsZSA9DOONMnnQNCoDrcZLhZASaoME@z> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:55:05PM -0800, Tom Tromey wrote: >Chris> I don't think it matters at all if the various versions are in >Chris> sync except for the inevitable user confusion and the basic >Chris> sense of wrongness that comes from having multiple versions, in >Chris> general. > >In a sense multiple versions won't be a real problem. >We rename our resulting library to avoid potential clashes. >I recommend that you not use the same name we are using. >(We also allow building libgcj against the system zlib, if it exists.) Hmm. I was just going to add zlib to the top level Makefile as it is in the gcc repository. The java targets there rely on zlib: configure-target-libjava: $(ALL_GCC) configure-target-zlib ... I don't think this is what you're saying though. It would certainly be much easier just to put this in the winsup directory. I was just trying to avoid duplication in CVS but maybe it really doesn't matter in this case. cgf