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
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo by Andrew Cowie
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:16:22 +1100
Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com> 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. 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@g.o mailing list