From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8258 invoked by uid 1002); 20 May 2003 18:24:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 958 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 18:24:14 -0000 From: Todd Berman Reply-To: tberman@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030520163245.GA6672@vaughan.foofalicious.com> References: <200305192349.32237.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20030520163245.GA6672@vaughan.foofalicious.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-Id: <1053454959.16448.8.camel@devweb> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.3.3 (Preview Release) Date: 20 May 2003 14:22:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it? X-Archives-Salt: fd05e4c8-26f1-4e5a-94de-a95b0c72433a X-Archives-Hash: 583512ed7b54ac16277af7838f3df153 Just as a side note, there is ABSOLUTELY reason to compile java packages from source. In many ebuilds that I write and commit to the tree, I use the jikes and debug USE variables to customize the build. So there seem to be at least 5 different 'machine independent' bytecode possibilities. (At least last time i looked jikes-generated code was not exactly the same as blackdown generated code). Now, this email isnt either in favor or against removing the JRE, just giving some additional information. --Todd On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 12:32, Chris Davies wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I for one do not wish to see JRE support dropped from gentoo, and have a = number of reasons why. >=20 > Having installed gentoo over 56K modems a number of times, I would have f= ound it immensely frustrating had I had to install a JDK just to get Java s= upport in mozilla and it's derivatives. We are talking 5+ hours for a JDK, = compared to only 2 for a JRE. Now I have broadband, it is easy to overlook = those people who can't get fast connectivity, but I don't think they should= be neglected merely for the sake of simplifying a supporting script. The m= ajority, I suspect, only have any Java product on their machine to get the = java plugin. >=20 > Secondly, there is simply no advantage to compiling java applications on = the system in question. It is a complete waste of time. Java compiles into = machine independant bytecode. The same Java code compiled by the same compi= ler on two different architectures should produce exactly the same result. = So unless you plan to offer gcj as an alternative compilation tool, compili= ng from source is utter waste of the user's time. It is dogmatic in the ext= reme to suggest that because we compile programs that generate machine depe= ndant object code on the system itself, all programs on the system should b= e compiled. Compilation is a means to an end, that end being object code th= at is more efficient than offered by binary distributions. In cases where t= he build process is long or difficult, often binaries are offered (openoffi= ce-bin and phoenix-bin spring to mind), so saying this is a source distribu= tion is false. I firmly beleive Java packages should be offered as binary u= ntil gcj is fit to compile them, and that one or other of the JREs should b= e the default Java environment.=20 >=20 > It is true that some packages do require a JDK, like Tomcat, but I can't = see that as being a reason that all Java packages must require a JDK. It sh= ould be pointed out that Tomcat is distributed as a binary, so the JDK is o= nly a runtime dependancy. Why inflict the JDK on users who neither want or = need it? >=20 > Well, thats my rant of the day over with :) >=20 > Thanks, > C.Davies -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list