libg++ updates

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Manfred" == Manfred Hollstein <manfredh@redhat.com> writes:

    >>  The maintenance cost of libg++ has been minimal, and it could
    >> be shared if the project lived in our CVS tree.

    Manfred> Exactly. So, what will be the next steps?

For what it's worth, I'm against this, on the grounds that a) the tree
is already very big, and b) as you say, libg++ is obsolete, and c) the
libraries that we provide are the ones mandated by the relevant
language specifications, not other stuff, however useful.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com