| 1 |
On 12/07/14 13:54, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, developers. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> A quick sit: right now toolchain.eclass is a big blocker for multilib |
| 5 |
> that doesn't seem to want to fix itself. Considering the complexity of |
| 6 |
> the eclass, the amount of automagic dependencies and the size of |
| 7 |
> resulting patches ([1] for a start but it lacks EAPI conditionals), I'm |
| 8 |
> thinking: wouldn't it be better to just remove awt support completely? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Rationale: gcj doesn't seem to have any future, and has exactly two |
| 11 |
> reverse dependencies in Gentoo. However, only one of them -- gcj-jdk -- |
| 12 |
> requires awt support. gcj-jdk can be supposedly used as a JDK for old |
| 13 |
> versions of Java, and supposedly can be used to bootstrap icedtea. |
| 14 |
> However, it never made it to stable and lags behind gcc. I've opened |
| 15 |
> a bug requesting lastriting it [2]. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If we masked gcj-jdk and USE=awt on gcc, we could successfully continue |
| 18 |
> working on multilib without having to increase toolchain.eclass |
| 19 |
> by a few hundred lines. That would probably also be the first step |
| 20 |
> towards removing gcj, which could become possible once mcpdf is |
| 21 |
> introduced to replace pdftk [3]. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What do you think? I've applied the masks listed here in |
| 24 |
> non-emul-linux-x86 subprofiles if you'd like to test them (not that |
| 25 |
> there's anything to test). |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> [1]:https://511832.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=389818 |
| 28 |
> [2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531900 |
| 29 |
> [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531898 |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I agree with this approach. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 37 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 38 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 39 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives