This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: `make install` should install the info files in java


Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> There are three issues here:
>   - Should fastjar be in the source tree?
>   - Should fastjar be installed?
>   - Should it be installed as `fastjar' or `jar'?

Mark and I agree that answer to the third question is "jar", and
the answer to the first two should be the same.  So: should
fastjar be in the source tree?  I think that is a question we
should ask the fastjar author(s).

First, fastjar is copyright Bryan Burns; some files also mention
Cory Hollingsworth.  I'm assuming this is not a problem, as
otherwise we would have to throw out not only fastjar, but also
zlib and stl.

The next question is: is Bryan Burns ok with the idea that when a
distribution (OS) vendor wants to make a "fastjar" package that they
use the version that comes with gcc, rather than the version at
sourceforge?  Another way of thinking of it: would it be ok to treat
the gcc cvs version as the master ("upstream") version?  Would Bryan
consider making the gcc version the master version, or at least agree
to make sure they are in sync?  (We'd give in check-in priviliges, of
course.)  If the answer to these questions is "yes", then I think
fastjar should stay in the gcc tree, otherwise it should probably go.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]