Larry Hall wrote:
I know I shouldn't answer a question with a question but you
intend this to be rhetorical, right?
Never mind. I'll bite. If you or someone else is interested
in providing a gcj package, I expect Chris would work with that
person to avoid any package clash.
No, that wasn't what I meant. I was simply asking if it was possible for
(and acceptable to) cgf to drop "gcj" from the gcc package. (I.e. not
provide it at all).
What I said was that *if* there was some cygwin user who actually was going
to use gcj for something "real"(TM), they would also be able to build it for
themselves. (I.e. I'm asserting that dropping gcj is not going to cause
anyone any major heartburn).