libg++ updates

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 20, 2000, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "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 is already very big, and b) as you say, libg++ is obsolete, and c) the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.

I'm not suggesting to have it checked out by default, nor to have it
included in snapshots or releases.  It's just as a means for us to
have libg++ in some CVS tree.  It doesn't even have to be inside the
GCC tree.  Perhaps a new CVS tree within Sourceware?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva    Enjoy Guaraná, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company        aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist    CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}   Write to mailing lists, not to me