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.

> 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.

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