On x86 at least I know that I've made openjdk depend on the previous openjdk. While this might not be ideal I guess we can always use a bin or something for the first build and after that we should always have a working openjdj. While I do understand and I agree with your point of view we must accept the fact that gcj is dead and let it RIP.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Miklos Vajna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:13:35PM +0300, Marius Cirsta <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Vmiklos what ARM hardware do you have ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuruPlug > >> I'm not sure how things stand >> where ARM is concerned but I think we shoud remove gcj for i686 and >> x86_64. >> During my conversion to openjdk7 I didn't really leave much that >> still uses gcj and maybe this applies to ARM too. > > You're right, the only advantage of gcj is that it's written in C++, > while openjdk is written in C++ and Java. Right now you don't need a > working java compiler to bootstrap openjdk on a new arch, if you > remove gcj, it'll be needed. > > However, if you say that the makedepends on openjdk (apache-ant, > rhino, etc) already not buildable with gcj, then you can forget my rant. > :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Frugalware-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel > _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
