Am Freitag, 26. November 2004 18:02 schrieb Archie Cobbs: > C. Brian Jones wrote: > >>I think there is no real need for it. It just bloats the source > >>tarball. All sources are included inside to tarball to build it. > > > > Actually there is a pretty good reason to have the built classes > > distributed. The fact is that results vary according to which > > "free" and broken compiler you use to compile Classpath. None of > > them really pass Jacks that I know of. New 1.5 features aren't > > supported anywhere in a production ready and easily available > > compiler (as in is already part of a popular distribution), and > > we thankfully don't include those in the main branch yet. > > > > And actually including the glibj.zip is a very popular thing, at > > least from actual users. For the rest of us who would rather > > change or fix things it matters very little. Again this can > > probably be solved by someone with a lot of initiative making > > something available to easily integrate into jpackage > > environments or the like to handle the actual distribution > > requirements vs. the developer requirements to only ship source > > and no binaries. > > For what it's worth, I'm an actual user :-) and would like to see > it remain, along with a ./configure flag added allowing installing > it without rebuilding it. This would particularly help with people > using JC because when people build Classpath with the "wrong" Java > compiler, this causes all the pre-generated C source files that > ship with JC to become invalid and have to be regenerated, which > takes a long time.
What about installation specific files like gnu.classpath.Configuration (I think this is the only one currently) ? Not all stuff is overwritable. Configuration.DEBUG comes to my mind. Michael -- Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
