Re: Proposal: merge Jessie as an external project

[Thomas Zander]

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..

-- 
Thomas Zander

pgpivXrq5quHS.pgp
Description: PGP signature