Re: Dropping gij-3.2 / gcj-3.2 / libgcj3 / libgcj3-dev

2003-05-25 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 22:33, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Is there any reason to keep these packages? They are replaced by the > > corresponding packages built from the gcc-3.3 source package. > > There is a newer version of gjdoc which needs packaging. This i

Re: Dropping gij-3.2 / gcj-3.2 / libgcj3 / libgcj3-dev

2003-05-24 Thread Mark Howard
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 22:33, Matthias Klose wrote: > Is there any reason to keep these packages? They are replaced by the > corresponding packages built from the gcc-3.3 source package. There is a newer version of gjdoc which needs packaging. This is far better than the curret version. Unfortunate

Re: Dropping gij-3.2 / gcj-3.2 / libgcj3 / libgcj3-dev

2003-05-23 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:33:53PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Is there any reason to keep these packages? They are replaced by the > corresponding packages built from the gcc-3.3 source package. I know of no reason why they cannot be removed. -- - mdz

Dropping gij-3.2 / gcj-3.2 / libgcj3 / libgcj3-dev

2003-05-23 Thread Matthias Klose
Is there any reason to keep these packages? They are replaced by the corresponding packages built from the gcc-3.3 source package. Matthias