>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> There are a couple of things that I am worried about: Mark> - Having multiple build systems were we have enough maintenance Mark> work with the current one. Yeah, make no mistake, if we encourage people to use IDEs, it will eventually have some effect. For instance, if we ever want to start doing preprocessing, we'll run into conflicts. (Personally I don't see this as a big problem, since I'm not that keen on preprocessing, but I know there are differences here already.) On the other hand, some effects of IDEs are beneficial. As we've already seen, Eclipse has a good compiler which has already found real Classpath bugs. Mark> - Pretending we support Eclipse which is arguably non-free since people Mark> are not testing, running and developing it with free runtimes. Mark> (You claim adding this might make this happen sooner. I do hope so.) I did all my work with Eclipse running on a free runtime. And AFAIK Eclipse 2.x works out of the box with many runtimes, including gcc 3.4 (just released). Mark> If you can show me some people that run Eclipse in a free environment Mark> that are actually happy with using your setup files than I am all for Mark> including them. But you must promise to maintain them. The only hard Mark> part seem to come up with the list of "classpaths" and the "exclusion Mark> list", which is done by hand in our normal build system also. Yeah, I'll do this. There really isn't much to maintain. I think the worst case is if nobody uses these and they rot. But if that happens, then we know people aren't using Eclipse to hack Classpath, and the solution is simple: cvs rm. Tom _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
