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/