1 |
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 10:45 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote: |
2 |
> I'm not fond of the name gcj-jdk. The ebuild Andrew made was just for |
3 |
> gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests |
4 |
> that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was. |
5 |
|
6 |
... but was hoping to get there some day. |
7 |
|
8 |
> Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac, |
9 |
> java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your |
10 |
> intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most |
11 |
> likely be able to use the same layer for different versions of gcj. |
12 |
|
13 |
You guys are the devs, so packag{ing,e name} decisions are yours to make |
14 |
as you see fit. |
15 |
|
16 |
The decision would seem to be |
17 |
|
18 |
dev-java/gcj |
19 |
dev-java/java-gcj-compat depends on dev-java/gcj |
20 |
|
21 |
vs |
22 |
|
23 |
dev-java/gcj-jdk |
24 |
|
25 |
While I prefer the latter name, I am very sensitive to the issue that |
26 |
once we call it a jdk (or rather, once java-config allows it to be |
27 |
selected) we're in for a nightmare of people's expectations not matching |
28 |
what is actually there... |
29 |
|
30 |
[shit like "why isn't it magically creating a binary for me? I thought |
31 |
GCJ created binaries! Bastards, rant rant rant] |
32 |
|
33 |
... which we'll probably get either way, especially as people |
34 |
misunderstand the { dev-java/gnu-classpath version vs gcj's imported |
35 |
version of classpath } issue and the { what Free Java is capable of |
36 |
these days } issue and the { gcj -C plus gij as JDK vs gcj -c plus gcj |
37 |
(link) as native compiler } issue. |
38 |
|
39 |
Lots of misunderstanding! Oh well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on |
40 |
and leverage what the Red Hat boys are up to. |
41 |
|
42 |
AfC |
43 |
Sydney |