Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: Hanno Meyer-Thurow <h.mth@×××.de>
To: Joshua Nichols <nichoj@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:52:15
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo by Joshua Nichols
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:45:58 -0500
Joshua Nichols <nichoj@g.o> wrote:

> For JDK-like environment, redhat has done much work on this already. It > is, surprisingly enough, called java-gcj-compat. Take a look at the > jpackage rpm for it [1]. You can find other sites for java-gcj-compat, > but the jpackage rpm seems to have the highest version I was able to find.
I did test java-gcj-compat already. It is of no use other than java/javac links to gij/gcj. If that is what you want I may add that symlinks to the ebuild. Besides that I work on OOo2. There you need a JDK-like environment with gij/gcj and not java/javac executables. As far as I looked at applications they look for gij/gcj instead of java/javac then. So I do not see any use of that java-gcj-compat package. It produces more work and things get even more ugly. As for ecj applications have --with-ecj switch or alike. I will have a look on gcj/ecj issue for applications after ant-core-1.6.5 merged with ecj.
> This shouldn't be much of a problem. The build.xml is pretty trivial, so > you should be able to replicate it using javac and jar.
True. Hacked up a for ecj native version already.
> There really isn't much 'integration' involved per se. You mostly just > have to create an env file that contains information about JAVA_HOME, > PATH, etc. Take a look at existing jdk/jre packages.
That would be great. I will see.
> 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.
Well, I would just say gcj is a bit different than usual JDKs. I am fine to rename it to dev-java/gcj. It is a gcc front-end. No matter what. So you are right for naming. But it provides a usable JDK in its way and usable by application already in Portage. (see above)
> 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.
At the moment I do not see a reason to slot it. You just want the latest version of gcj 4.1 because of enhancements and fixes. GCJ 4.0 is missing too many features. The reason why I want to push on gcj is because with gcj 4.1 and ecj as bytecompiler you get Azureus build and running. Regards, Hanno -- gentoo-java@g.o mailing list