Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment

[Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>]

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:10:14 +0100, 
Daniel Bonniot <Daniel.Bonniot@inria.fr> wrote: 

>>> 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.
>
> OK, sounds good to me.
>
> Did I misunderstand the initial proposal, or was it about compiling all
> Java packages to native?

It seems I commented the thread on pkg-java-maintainers and forgot there
was a thread here! ;-)

We can think about compiling applications to native and keep libs as
jars. tomcat and eclipse already been mentionned, I'm also thinking
about gjdoc, ant, and when it'll be possible: fop, batik, argouml.

I'm not in favour of compiling on the user machine. Also, don't forget
if the package is well done, only the native part will be compiled, the
jars are arch-indep so they'll not be re-compiled by the buildd's.

-- 
  .''`. 
 : :' :rnaud
 `. `'  
   `-    
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html