Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Distribute gcc minus gcj? (was Re: Questions about Cygwin's "jar" command) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:59:43 -0700 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <86el1moyv1.fsf@wondark.www.rattieworldocomfort.com> <3EF5EF13.1080706@cygwin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <3EF5EF13.1080706@cygwin.com> Larry Hall wrote: > David M. Karr wrote: >> It doesn't appear to be in a separate Cygwin package, so I guess I >> can't use Cygwin setup to "uninstall" it. > Right, unless you don't want gcc, which is the package it comes with. Is there any way we can persuade cgf to build the gcc distribution without "jar.exe" (i.e. exclude gcj, which is still a pretty immature component of the family)? Not that this is terribly bothersome (I just put the Sun Java SDK in front of cygwin in my $PATH), but I wonder how many people actually use gcj for their real(TM) work (vs the Sun JDK).. (I suspect the number's still vanishingly small, and those who do are quite capable of building their own distribution anyway). -- 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/