Am 27.05.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Rene Engelhard wrote: > >> I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or >> we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely. > > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> Niels and Emmanuel have already pointed out the most important facts why >> we can't support GCJ forever. My Java baseline is: > > OK, let me rephrase my intent again. > > I think it’s fair to drop GCJ support. But please do not so for > as long as doing that breaks GCJ architectures. That means, for > all affected packages, do maintainer uploads or NMUs *first* > that: > > - change the B-D to require default-jdk only on an architecture > whitelist (do not use a blacklist, that makes bootstrapping > new architectures impossible_) > > - change d/rules, d/control to only build the *-java packages > on those architectures > > - ensure these changes are in sid *first* > > Thanks! > > bye, > //mirabilos Hi, even with just being someone lurking on the ML for some time I still would like to voice my opinion on this matter. I think gcj serves one single purpose only at this point in time: Bootstrapping during the OpenJDK build. I concur with the voiced opinion, that gcj is from a piratical perspective not a working JVM any more. As unfortunate it is for the architectures without OpenJDK, I also think gcj does not work as default-jdk either on those architectures. As much as it is sad to write this, I fully agree at this point Java should be dropped from those architectures without an OpenJDK build. It is better to have no installable default-jdk, than a silently broken JVM that is not really usable with current Java applications. Best regards, Jan Henke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature