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).
Of course, all of this is Chris's decision however, since gcj was added in
response to requests, I don't think it can be removed without some amount
of noise on this list about it's disappearence. So I'm not sure your
assertion holds, assuming the email archives on this subject are any
inidication. I think the logical next step would be to make gcj a
package, which is the approach Chris recommended IIRC.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
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/
