Re: Proposal: merge Jessie as an external project

[Michael Koch]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:24:52AM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote:
> 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..

The thing is that Casey wanted to contribute it to GNU classpath anyway and
maintain it in inside classpath, AFAIK. There are just some issues with FSF
last I heard. I see the inclusion as external project just a step towards a
full merge.


Michael
-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/