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
Message-Id: 20060221185317.3e23ce8c.h.mth@web.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] work on gcj for gentoo by Joshua Nichols
1 On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:45:58 -0500
2 Joshua Nichols <nichoj@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > For JDK-like environment, redhat has done much work on this already. It
5 > is, surprisingly enough, called java-gcj-compat. Take a look at the
6 > jpackage rpm for it [1]. You can find other sites for java-gcj-compat,
7 > but the jpackage rpm seems to have the highest version I was able to find.
8
9 I did test java-gcj-compat already. It is of no use other than
10 java/javac links to gij/gcj. If that is what you want I may add that
11 symlinks to the ebuild. Besides that I work on OOo2. There you
12 need a JDK-like environment with gij/gcj and not java/javac
13 executables. As far as I looked at applications they look for gij/gcj
14 instead of java/javac then. So I do not see any use of that
15 java-gcj-compat package. It produces more work and things get
16 even more ugly.
17
18 As for ecj applications have --with-ecj switch or alike.
19 I will have a look on gcj/ecj issue for applications after
20 ant-core-1.6.5 merged with ecj.
21
22 > This shouldn't be much of a problem. The build.xml is pretty trivial, so
23 > you should be able to replicate it using javac and jar.
24
25 True. Hacked up a build.sh for ecj native version already.
26
27 > There really isn't much 'integration' involved per se. You mostly just
28 > have to create an env file that contains information about JAVA_HOME,
29 > PATH, etc. Take a look at existing jdk/jre packages.
30
31 That would be great. I will see.
32
33 > I'm not fond of the name gcj-jdk. The ebuild Andrew made was just for
34 > gcj itself, without the Java compatibility stuff, iirc. -jdk suggests
35 > that it provides a usable JDK, which it doesn't as it was.
36
37 Well, I would just say gcj is a bit different than usual JDKs.
38 I am fine to rename it to dev-java/gcj. It is a gcc front-end.
39 No matter what. So you are right for naming.
40 But it provides a usable JDK in its way and usable by application
41 already in Portage. (see above)
42
43 > Speaking of which, I think the added compatibility layer (for javac,
44 > java, etc) should be a separate package. I'm not sure if this was your
45 > intention or not. Either way, it would make sense, since you would most
46 > likely be able to use the same layer for different versions of gcj.
47
48 At the moment I do not see a reason to slot it. You just want the
49 latest version of gcj 4.1 because of enhancements and fixes.
50 GCJ 4.0 is missing too many features.
51
52 The reason why I want to push on gcj is because with gcj 4.1
53 and ecj as bytecompiler you get Azureus build and running.
54
55
56 Regards,
57 Hanno
58 --
59 gentoo-java@g.o mailing list