Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Shankar Unni" <shankar AT cotagesoft DOT com>
To:	<lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Cc:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Distribute gcc minus gcj? (was Re: Questions about Cygwin's "jar" command)
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:58:35 -0700
Message-ID:	<026f01c339b9$769a69f0$7e0aa8c0@HQSHANKAR>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
Importance:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<3EF749AF.1010303@rfk.com>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h5NJ06P23521

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).
--
Shankar.



--
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/

- Raw text -