Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 12:24 -0700, Tom Tromey a écrit : > > >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Mailhot <Nicolas.Mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Nicolas> You have to remember though things move in-jvm every > > Nicolas> release and it's mightily nice to be able to hide these > > Nicolas> changes from the packages so you don't have to rewrite > > Nicolas> specs all the time > > > > Yeah... actually I'm fine with leaving things as they are. I just > > wasn't sure where these symlinks should point for libgcj. But it > > sounds like just pointing them at libgcj.jar should work. > > The symlinks are actually just a security (yes the jvm includes > stuff we need). You can probably point them to any jar you like - if > the stuff in internal to the jvm it'll be added to the classpath > anyway. > > It's nicer to point them to the real implementation though, if only > to document the jvm internal layout. Would it be better perhaps to replace the symlinks with empty jar files? Or maybe jarfiles containing only a README to indicate that the classes that would be in there are now in the core classpath? Cheers, Gary
