From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FBpBF-0003M2-8L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:17:01 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1M8GTu0013649; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:16:29 GMT Received: from relay01.pair.com (relay01.pair.com [209.68.5.15]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1M8GRGS029288 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:16:28 GMT Received: (qmail 25015 invoked by uid 0); 22 Feb 2006 08:16:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO procyon) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 22 Feb 2006 08:16:25 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 150.101.122.233 Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo From: Andrew Cowie To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <43FB35B6.10105@gentoo.org> References: <20060221160425.b1478bdc.h.mth@web.de> <43FB35B6.10105@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Zwvg3AK5sueAmZRRIRr1" Organization: Operational Dynamics Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:16:22 +1100 Message-Id: <1140596182.19188.15.camel@procyon.operationaldynamics.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-java@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2 X-Archives-Salt: 21560ebe-7ed9-43bc-a8ef-e594482d7dbc X-Archives-Hash: 208719fca7e4277c7ffc0ac315ccebf9 --=-Zwvg3AK5sueAmZRRIRr1 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 10:45 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: > I'm not fond of the name gcj-jdk. The ebuild Andrew made was just for=20 > gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests=20 > that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was. ... but was hoping to get there some day. > Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac,=20 > java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your=20 > intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most=20 > likely be able to use the same layer for different versions of gcj. You guys are the devs, so packag{ing,e name} decisions are yours to make as you see fit. The decision would seem to be dev-java/gcj dev-java/java-gcj-compat depends on dev-java/gcj vs dev-java/gcj-jdk While I prefer the latter name, I am very sensitive to the issue that once we call it a jdk (or rather, once java-config allows it to be selected) we're in for a nightmare of people's expectations not matching what is actually there... [shit like "why isn't it magically creating a binary for me? I thought GCJ created binaries! Bastards, rant rant rant] ... which we'll probably get either way, especially as people misunderstand the { dev-java/gnu-classpath version vs gcj's imported version of classpath } issue and the { what Free Java is capable of these days } issue and the { gcj -C plus gij as JDK vs gcj -c plus gcj (link) as native compiler } issue. Lots of misunderstanding! Oh well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on and leverage what the Red Hat boys are up to. AfC Sydney --=-Zwvg3AK5sueAmZRRIRr1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD/B3ULVETDFf2570RAnEYAKCK0+RhgVvYCDp85QLE1k7R4yvLVgCfUVKe ewBSN3mTm62LBtrOLWsFvl8= =ygOx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Zwvg3AK5sueAmZRRIRr1-- -- gentoo-java@gentoo.org mailing list