X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_GC
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4F7BE62A.40906@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:11:54 -0500
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: GCJ related questions
References: <BAY147-W509AA41BDF6867B0F674AD04D0 AT phx DOT gbl> <4F7A8F85 DOT 1070201 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4F7B4DE4 DOT 4040502 AT towo DOT net> <4F7BD54E DOT 2000900 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
In-Reply-To: <4F7BD54E.2000900@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 2012-04-03 23:59, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 1) Licensing. If you want to discuss this bit further, take it to the
> cygwin-licensing list. Now, ecj is under the EFL-1.0 license, which is
> OSI-approved. So, *cygwin* shouldn't have any license compatibility
> concerns, thanks to cygwin's "exception" clause in its version of the GPL:

A Java jar is not linked against Cygwin in any way, so that was never an 
issue.

> However, it's not clear whether the *gcc* folks are as happy about
> co-shipping ecj (if they were, then they would be doing it already).

You mean shipping their own copy of ecj?  Best practice is *not* to 
bundle code.

> So, stock gcc doesn't directly include ecj even though you'd need it for a
> working gcj (bytecode) compiler.

Of course not, it is meant to be handled like any other external dependency.

> 2) self-hosting. I seem to recall there was some issue with actually
> building ecj using cygwin-gcc/gcj, but the details are fuzzy. So there
> was some reluctance to include a "binary blob" we can't reproduce from
> source; better to let end-users d/l so they can blame "those guys" if
> they get a corrupt/malware version?

Now *this* is an issue.  Building ecj from sources requires ant, whose 
optional components add a lot of build-time dependencies.  However, it 
is possible with Ports' Java stack, which allows Ports to provide the 
java-ecj package.


Yaakov

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple