| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 10:45 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm not fond of the name gcj-jdk. The ebuild Andrew made was just for |
| 3 |
> gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests |
| 4 |
> that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
... but was hoping to get there some day. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac, |
| 9 |
> java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your |
| 10 |
> intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most |
| 11 |
> likely be able to use the same layer for different versions of gcj. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You guys are the devs, so packag{ing,e name} decisions are yours to make |
| 14 |
as you see fit. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The decision would seem to be |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
dev-java/gcj |
| 19 |
dev-java/java-gcj-compat depends on dev-java/gcj |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
vs |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
dev-java/gcj-jdk |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
While I prefer the latter name, I am very sensitive to the issue that |
| 26 |
once we call it a jdk (or rather, once java-config allows it to be |
| 27 |
selected) we're in for a nightmare of people's expectations not matching |
| 28 |
what is actually there... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[shit like "why isn't it magically creating a binary for me? I thought |
| 31 |
GCJ created binaries! Bastards, rant rant rant] |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
... which we'll probably get either way, especially as people |
| 34 |
misunderstand the { dev-java/gnu-classpath version vs gcj's imported |
| 35 |
version of classpath } issue and the { what Free Java is capable of |
| 36 |
these days } issue and the { gcj -C plus gij as JDK vs gcj -c plus gcj |
| 37 |
(link) as native compiler } issue. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Lots of misunderstanding! Oh well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on |
| 40 |
and leverage what the Red Hat boys are up to. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
AfC |
| 43 |
Sydney |
Archives