Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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 DOT fsf AT wondark DOT www DOT rattieworldocomfort DOT com> <3EF5EF13 DOT 1080706 AT cygwin DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT 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/