From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:46:08 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3] classpath: bump to version 0.99 In-Reply-To: <87wpcukqe1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20170212015451.16715-1-m.hoffmann@cartelsol.com> <20170212020444.32045-1-m.hoffmann@cartelsol.com> <20170212151431.1fe6cce3@free-electrons.com> <5160b52a-c48a-4b52-3d0e-9d73a6fb5c37@cartelsol.com> <20170213142952.302e6ee4@free-electrons.com> <871sv2m5yb.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20170213170918.5428781c@free-electrons.com> <87wpcukqe1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20170213174608.1af2c81b@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:27:18 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > Agreed. But that creates a kind of weird circular dependency, no? > > > Or perhaps we should just get rid of the prompt for classpath > > completely? > > Either that or dropping the 'depends on jamvm' from classpath. It indeed > isn't very useful without a jvm, but it still builds Ok and I guess a > lot of other package combinations also don't make a lot of sense. I think it's a better option than making the classpath package invisible. Indeed, if we make it invisible, users might wonder if we have "support" for it. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com