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 in PATH.
Regards mks
-- 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/
