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 1FE0ml-0004fE-GT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:04:47 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1S8uYMv014982; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:56:34 GMT Received: from fmmailgate04.web.de (fmmailgate04.web.de [217.72.192.242]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1S8uX5D024957 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:56:33 GMT Received: by fmmailgate04.web.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/webde Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k1S7XtDq003917 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:33:55 +0100 Received: from [84.136.112.101] (helo=anomalie.manna.org) by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.106 #83) id 1FDzLN-0001Y3-00 for gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:32:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:34:40 +0100 From: Hanno Meyer-Thurow To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [RESEND] Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo Message-Id: <20060228083440.bd1e53aa.h.mth@web.de> In-Reply-To: <1140596182.19188.15.camel@procyon.operationaldynamics.com> References: <20060221160425.b1478bdc.h.mth@web.de> <43FB35B6.10105@gentoo.org> <1140596182.19188.15.camel@procyon.operationaldynamics.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.1.9 (GTK+ 2.8.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: h.mth@web.de X-Sender: h.mth@web.de X-Archives-Salt: a72b444a-618e-4dd7-88bb-f2260176d77e X-Archives-Hash: 599f249fed051c20750ab7a492538d42 On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:16:22 +1100 Andrew Cowie wrote: > 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 > > gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests > > that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was. > > ... but was hoping to get there some day. Some news of my overlay I added * shell wrapper scripts for java{,c,doc} to reflect gij / ecj / gjdoc * symlinks to jar, javah, rmic (from fastjar, gcjh, grmic) * java-config-2 integration with java-config-1 compat * PDEPEND on eclipse-ecj and gjdoc to provide a usable JDK with dev-java/gcj I also added a Ecj Compiler Adapter and GnuRmic Rmic Adapter to ant-{core,tasks} which need review. They seem to work. It is simple code. Azureus, Beanshell, eclipse-sdk, Xalan and dependencies merged without issues. OpenOffice.org will need some tweaking for gcj / ecj. Luckily there is a hack from Arklinux to base the work on. My todo high priority * fix issues that pop up (OOo, ...) * wait for java-config-2 to get into Portage medium priority * integrate jar to native low priority * eclipse-sdk to native --- I really dislike that java-gcj-compat. Why? I used it. It is extra work you just do not want. I just do not want to see it in Gentoo! ;) --- > > Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac, > > java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your > > intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most > > 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. Would be a cut and paste from dev-java/gcj then. > 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] That would be the database / jar to native // java to native work as planned. I use 'native (nativeonly)' useflag for eclipse-ecj and gjdoc already. > ... 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. True. We got java{,c}, et cetera, for standard JDK behaviour. I add 'native' useflag to get native code. There will be issues, for sure. > Lots of misunderstanding! Oh well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on > and leverage what the Red Hat boys are up to. I set one way to go. It just needs to be accepted or tweaked to your liking. ;) Finally, one needs to write the code. * which is me * ... and maybe some Java programmer that got some extra spare time to waste Regards, Hanno -- gentoo-java@gentoo.org mailing list