On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:24:52AM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote: > On Wednesday 27 April 2005 22:44, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote: > > I propose that we build Jessie directly into glibj.zip. �Having Jessie > > present by default would be convenient both for GNU Classpath developers > > and also for packagers. > > Would that mean that the developers of Jessie would eventually come over to > the classpath CVS? > Then just 'forking' an implementation means more work for the developers to > make work lighter for the distributors. > > From this thread I note that most developers are worried about distribution > issues, not development issues. Which I find strange. > A classpath user should not have to download the tarball and compile it > himself, and a typical user will not do that anyway. > He will just apt-get (or yum*) the package and dependencies come along. The > need to put external libraries in your CVS, is frowned upon in just about > all projects I have contributed on. > > A simple configure extention to print a 'please download jess, this subdir > will not not be build' or similar should be enough. It certainly works for > the projects I have seen. > Any idea how big KDE would be if dependent libraries were to be included? > Just unmaintainable..
The thing is that Casey wanted to contribute it to GNU classpath anyway and maintain it in inside classpath, AFAIK. There are just some issues with FSF last I heard. I see the inclusion as external project just a step towards a full merge. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
