Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 14:21 EST ------- Is this going to happen? From my perspective, the pros/cons are: Pros: . no need to bug Jakub on libgcj requests -> this is the biggie IMO. I know I feel bad when I want one small class library fix and it requires getting Jakub to spend time spinning all of gcc . no need to wait for entire gcc test suite to complete . can potentially push java-gcj-compat directly into libgcj SRPM . distro compiler changes independently of java class library => can lead to more bugfixes for the latter without potentially destabilizing the former Cons: . skew between the two SRPMS? . no real upstream source for the libgcj SRPM's Source as it's derived from the gcc SRPM . will patches need to be maintained in multiple places? . will we be duplicating test suite running? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review