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