| 1 |
Hello, developers. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
A quick sit: right now toolchain.eclass is a big blocker for multilib |
| 4 |
that doesn't seem to want to fix itself. Considering the complexity of |
| 5 |
the eclass, the amount of automagic dependencies and the size of |
| 6 |
resulting patches ([1] for a start but it lacks EAPI conditionals), I'm |
| 7 |
thinking: wouldn't it be better to just remove awt support completely? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Rationale: gcj doesn't seem to have any future, and has exactly two |
| 10 |
reverse dependencies in Gentoo. However, only one of them -- gcj-jdk -- |
| 11 |
requires awt support. gcj-jdk can be supposedly used as a JDK for old |
| 12 |
versions of Java, and supposedly can be used to bootstrap icedtea. |
| 13 |
However, it never made it to stable and lags behind gcc. I've opened |
| 14 |
a bug requesting lastriting it [2]. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If we masked gcj-jdk and USE=awt on gcc, we could successfully continue |
| 17 |
working on multilib without having to increase toolchain.eclass |
| 18 |
by a few hundred lines. That would probably also be the first step |
| 19 |
towards removing gcj, which could become possible once mcpdf is |
| 20 |
introduced to replace pdftk [3]. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What do you think? I've applied the masks listed here in |
| 23 |
non-emul-linux-x86 subprofiles if you'd like to test them (not that |
| 24 |
there's anything to test). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1]:https://511832.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=389818 |
| 27 |
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531900 |
| 28 |
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531898 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives