Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: Hanno Meyer-Thurow <h.mth@×××.de>
To: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Subject: [RESEND] Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:04:47
Message-Id: 20060228083440.bd1e53aa.h.mth@web.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo by Andrew Cowie
1 On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:16:22 +1100
2 Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 10:45 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
5 > > I'm not fond of the name gcj-jdk. The ebuild Andrew made was just for
6 > > gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests
7 > > that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was.
8 >
9 > ... but was hoping to get there some day.
10
11 Some news of my overlay
12
13 I added
14 * shell wrapper scripts for java{,c,doc} to reflect gij / ecj / gjdoc
15 * symlinks to jar, javah, rmic (from fastjar, gcjh, grmic)
16 * java-config-2 integration with java-config-1 compat
17 * PDEPEND on eclipse-ecj and gjdoc
18
19 to provide a usable JDK with dev-java/gcj
20
21 I also added a Ecj Compiler Adapter and GnuRmic Rmic Adapter
22 to ant-{core,tasks} which need review. They seem to work.
23 It is simple code.
24
25 Azureus, Beanshell, eclipse-sdk, Xalan and dependencies merged
26 without issues. OpenOffice.org will need some tweaking for gcj / ecj.
27 Luckily there is a hack from Arklinux to base the work on.
28
29 My todo
30 high priority
31 * fix issues that pop up (OOo, ...)
32 * wait for java-config-2 to get into Portage
33
34 medium priority
35 * integrate jar to native
36
37 low priority
38 * eclipse-sdk to native
39
40 ---
41 I really dislike that java-gcj-compat.
42 Why? I used it. It is extra work you just do not want.
43
44 I just do not want to see it in Gentoo! ;)
45 ---
46
47 > > Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac,
48 > > java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your
49 > > intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most
50 > > likely be able to use the same layer for different versions of gcj.
51 >
52 > You guys are the devs, so packag{ing,e name} decisions are yours to make
53 > as you see fit.
54
55 Would be a cut and paste from dev-java/gcj then.
56
57 > While I prefer the latter name, I am very sensitive to the issue that
58 > once we call it a jdk (or rather, once java-config allows it to be
59 > selected) we're in for a nightmare of people's expectations not matching
60 > what is actually there...
61 >
62 > [shit like "why isn't it magically creating a binary for me? I thought
63 > GCJ created binaries! Bastards, rant rant rant]
64
65 That would be the database / jar to native // java to native work as planned.
66 I use 'native (nativeonly)' useflag for eclipse-ecj and gjdoc already.
67
68 > ... which we'll probably get either way, especially as people
69 > misunderstand the { dev-java/gnu-classpath version vs gcj's imported
70 > version of classpath } issue and the { what Free Java is capable of
71 > these days } issue and the { gcj -C plus gij as JDK vs gcj -c plus gcj
72 > (link) as native compiler } issue.
73
74 True.
75
76 We got java{,c}, et cetera, for standard JDK behaviour.
77 I add 'native' useflag to get native code.
78
79 There will be issues, for sure.
80
81 > Lots of misunderstanding! Oh well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on
82 > and leverage what the Red Hat boys are up to.
83
84 I set one way to go.
85 It just needs to be accepted or tweaked to your liking. ;)
86 Finally, one needs to write the code.
87 * which is me
88 * ... and maybe some Java programmer that got some
89 extra spare time to waste
90
91
92 Regards,
93 Hanno
94 --
95 gentoo-java@g.o mailing list