From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25443 invoked by uid 1002); 20 May 2003 22:41:45 -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 19561 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 22:41:45 -0000 From: Dylan Carlson Reply-To: absinthe@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:41:40 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <200305192349.32237.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20030520163245.GA6672@vaughan.foofalicious.com> In-Reply-To: <20030520163245.GA6672@vaughan.foofalicious.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305201841.44994.absinthe@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] JRE support - is it worth it? X-Archives-Salt: 923710bd-1c49-46c4-aec7-3295c33461d2 X-Archives-Hash: 1425ba1b79a801e6f42e6e4bb566500d =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 20 May 2003 12:32 pm, Chris Davies wrote: > Hi, > > 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 compiler on two different architectures should produce exactly the > same result. So unless you plan to offer gcj as an alternative > compilation tool, compiling from source is utter waste of the user's > time. It is dogmatic in the extreme to suggest that because we compile > programs that generate machine dependant object code on the system > itself, all programs on the system should be compiled. Compilation is a > means to an end, that end being object code that is more efficient than > offered by binary distributions. In cases where the build process is > long or difficult, often binaries are offered (openoffice-bin and > phoenix-bin spring to mind), so saying this is a source distribution is > false. I firmly beleive Java packages should be offered as binary until > gcj is fit to compile them, and that one or other of the JREs should be > the default Java environment. You are incorrect here.=20 Yes, bytecode is bytecode, however, there are numerous reasons why=20 compiling from source makes sense for some packages, not least of which is= =20 optional run-time dependencies that can be built in (or not) to the final=20 JAR. Also, classes produced by Jikes are often smaller than what's produced by=20 Sun's javac. Because of these reasons and others not listed here,=20 building from source is not only desireable, it will most definitely=20 remain a focus of how we do things. GCJ/GIJ is planned to be integrated into java-config(1), but will not work= =20 with a lot of things in the near future until it improves. =20 Your whole reasoning with GCJ, frankly, I find completely insane. > 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 > should be pointed out that Tomcat is distributed as a binary, so the JDK > is only a runtime dependancy. Why inflict the JDK on users who neither > want or need it? Tomcat is only a binary because it's not currently a source build. That=20 will change. Throughout the Java tree I expect to take advantage of the=20 'prebuilt' USE flag and make ebuilds binary-or-source where it makes sense= =20 to do so. The whole prebuilt USE flag was born out of an RFC I submitted to -core=20 long ago. =20 > > Well, thats my rant of the day over with :) > I need reasoned feedback, not rants. This isn't even an RFC yet, so=20 please chill out. Cheers, Dylan Carlson Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0x708E165F Key fingerprint =3D 3AEA DE38 FE42 15A6 C0E2 730E 3D04 BCC1 708E 165F =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+yq8nPQS8wXCOFl8RAqLSAJwOa02AMPQnqDqtlkuRtXb1qReEywCfXzS5 Wx3KeRxny6cmUofMp58mDRo=3D =3D9oqR =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list