This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Distribute gcc minus gcj? (was Re: Questions about Cygwin's "jar"command)
- From: Markus Schönhaber <mks99 at t-online dot de>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:25:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: Distribute gcc minus gcj? (was Re: Questions about Cygwin's "jar"command)
- References: <026f01c339b9$769a69f0$7e0aa8c0@HQSHANKAR>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
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
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html