Re: Proposal: merge Jessie as an external project

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 22:08 -0700, Casey Marshall wrote:
> >>>>> "Archie" == Archie Cobbs <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Archie> 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.  For GNU Classpath
> >> developers who want to test apps that require SSL, it would mean
> >> one less dependency to fetch and setup on CLASSPATH.  For packagers
> >> obviously it would mean one less package to maintain.  More
> >> importantly though, it would eliminate a circular dependency.  In
> >> Fedora Core 4, for example we want a Java SSL provider available by
> >> default.  This means that ideally the libgcj package should depend
> >> on the Jessie package.  But Jessie's build requires libgcj.  We
> >> worked around this by having java-gcj-compat depend on both libgcj
> >> and Jessie, and packages requiring a Java SSL provider requiring
> >> java-gcj-compat.  However in my opinion this complexity is
> >> unwarranted especially given that Jessie's SSL provider jar is only
> >> 350K.
> 
> I support doing this, and would even rather see it get its packages
> renamed to 'gnu.jessie', or 'gnu.javax.net.ssl', eventually.
> 

If you're willing to maintain this code in the GNU Classpath repository
then should we just do this rename right away?  Shall I post a patch?

Tom