Ben Burton wrote:
>>Well, the gcj runtimes (libgcj or whatever the package name is)
>>should be fixed to provide java-runtime.
>>
>
>Oh.. I had figured it was a deliberate decision on behalf of the gcc
>maintainers not to provide java-runtime (for reasons such as command-line
>incompatibility, etc).
>
The "gij" command tries to be more-or-less compatible with the "java"
command.
If by "gcc maintainers" you means the Debian gcc maintainers, I don't know
who they are. But if you mean the people actually developing gcj, well I
don't know if any of them are involved in maintaining Debian packages.
--Per
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
