On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 21:09, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > Strictly speaking, we shouldn't need to recompile it under gcj, but > > > it's a nice, safe thing to do if we're going to use gij as the java > > > interpreter. > > > > Is that pure NIH, or are there other reasons? > > Why make life hard? > > FOP needs to compile with a free Java compiler and run in a free Java > environment to be part of a completely free toolchain. That's a view. I don't support it. Sun provide Java. Lets use it. > > One reason for using gcj for compiling is that if we need to report bugs > with other free software, our components are going to be suspect if they > have been tainted by non-free components during compiling or runtime. Your definition. Not mine. What's your definition of a bug in this context? Any reason we shouldn't support fop by feeding back to them? Or would you prefer to fix them on the version used here? I can't see the rationale there. > There are developers who will push bug reports back at us in those > situations, and I support them in doing so. > > As hard as it may be to start, having a completely free toolchain will > be blessing. To whom? Sounds like whipping yourself to me. -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
