Re: GCJ Thought Balloon
Evan Prodromou <email@example.com> writes:
> PB> It should be the package builder's job to compile into a .so
> PB> file. The package's configure script should have a --with-gcj
> PB> option to enable/disable building a .so file; the default is
> PB> either --without-gcj or it is autodetected.
> Uh... with all due respect: hunh? I'm talking about Debian (.deb)
> packages. Is that what you're talking about?
> Or are you talking about tarballs with autoconf information?
I was referring to a good convention for source tarballs which
makes it easier to create binary packages.
> If I am not mistaken, it's possible to use GCJ to compile .class files
> as well as raw .java files. So a package could ship with .class files
> and, if GCJ is available, compile them into an .so.
It is possible. Currently, you get better-optimized code and potentially
better debuging information if you compile from Java source.
Another disadvantage is that what is installed depends on the order
in which you installed package - unless installing gcj compiles
previously-installed packages to native.
Another thing to consider: Should gcjh-generated .h files be installed?
> For Freenet the compiled .so is about 3Mb, so this would actually be
> quite enough to worry about on my side.
In that case the clean solution would seem to be make two packages:
freenet and freenet-with-gcj (or whatever the naming convention would be).