| 1 |
Andrew Cowie wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> 4) the BIG problem. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> So far so good. Until you run into 2 big problems. The first is the fact |
| 6 |
> that your new GCJ has a new version of classpath, libgcj.so.6, which is |
| 7 |
> incompatible with libgcj.so.5 of gcj-3.4. So, anything you've built |
| 8 |
> previously with gcj-3.4 will need to be rebuilt. Ok, no huge deal. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> But there's a bigger issue. In Gentoo, the principal way that everything |
| 11 |
> works so nicely together is that java-config sticks |
| 12 |
> the /opt/whatever-jdk-1.4.2/bin directory onto PATH. Great! Except that |
| 13 |
> the above install also copied a little file named gcc to /opt/gcj-4/bin. |
| 14 |
> How about that, huh! Guess what that would do to your system if on PATH? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I did some preliminary experiments and it seems that you don't actually |
| 17 |
> need that gcc executable there. (or rather, gcc is pretty good about |
| 18 |
> understanding where it was installed and where to look for its own |
| 19 |
> pieces). But that would definitely need some cleansing. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We had a brief talk about this yesterday, but this time difference is a |
| 22 |
problem, so we should probably revert to mail;) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The fact that gcj will keep duplicates of many of the gcc headers, |
| 26 |
libraries and programs, is indeed an ugly technical problem. One thing |
| 27 |
is that it eats disk space. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Another is the libraries now required by gcj-compiled packages. Will |
| 30 |
they have rpaths pointing to /opt in them? If not, how do we know they |
| 31 |
work with whatever version of gcc is in /usr? If they do indeed point to |
| 32 |
/opt, and somebody uninstalls (or upgrades gcj to an ABI-incompatible |
| 33 |
version), all gcj-compiled apps could break, right? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Cheers, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- Karl T |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-java@g.o mailing list |
Archives