I don't think I agree. If you can't compile the package with Free tools then putting it in main doesn't make sense. You can't rebuild the package using Free Software. Jikes or something was seriously taken to task for their use of a JavaCC generated grammer. The arguement was that even though you could generate the .java file it wasn't possible to parse the grammer and you couldn't build the package.
Maybe I hallucinated that exchange but I thought I had heard that. I say it should build from scratch using all DFSG tools if it is going to go in main. That's just me. On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 03:38, Dalibor Topic wrote: > --- Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:33:39PM +0200, John Leuner wrote: > > > I feel that despite whatever decisions we make about free and non-free > > > VMs and tools etc, we should firstly pay attention to simply compiling > > > our software with free tools and against free libraries or free APIs. > > Doesn't this happen already? Please give examples. If it can be compiled > > with free software but isn't, what severity bug should we file? Should > > poilcy say that free compilers must be used if they can? > > I'd say yes, but as a free java environment developer, I'm biased ;) Though I > don't think it should be a severe bug preventing a package from entering > testing. -- _____________________________________________________________________ Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
