Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
>
> I hear the arguments for providing natively compiled versions too. This looks like it's not going to be a clear cut choice. A few thoughts:
>
> 1) There is a kind of parallel with other languages in Debian. I think of at least python and emacs-lisp. If I understand correctly, modules in these
> languages are distributed as source, and compiled to bytecode (for optimization) on the user machine, right? What is the rationale for this choice? Does it
> apply to us?
There are big differences between these and our case. E.g. the resources
need to build the native library from most jars are much more and ait
will take mostly much more time.
> 2) There is a middle ground position which would be to provide natively compiled version of a few select applications. Eclipse comes immediately to my mind,
> Daniele mentioned Tomcat. The question is, to we want that for any single java library in Debian? If not, where do we draw the line?
That is my opinion too. There is no reason to compile all java libraries
to native. This would be too much repositroy waste for nearly no gain.
Native Eclipse IS a gain. Native Tomcat most probably too. We need to
find the big things and optimize it/build it to native so people can
easily work with it and make the native libraries an improvement for
them and no additional burden.
Michael
--
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Reply to: