On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 15:19 -0400, David Walluck wrote:
> Vadim Nasardinov wrote:
> > I am a little fuzzy on why sharing exact same .spec files (modulo
> > minor distro-specific patches) is infeasible.
>
> Anyway, the good news is that I have actually gone and taken a
> lot (if not all!) FC spec files and added `%if %{gcj_support}' in the
> appropriate places.
When I read that, my first thought is: It would be nice if the macro's
used in JPP packages were generic/abstract enough that they didn't need
to mention GCJ at all, and that the definitions of the 'compilation'
macro could be modified to include doing .so builds in addition to the
class files on platforms with GCJ...
Then I start to realize that it would probably need to be wedged into
the Ant build file called by the macro. Then I start to think it would
be nice if the Ant targets were generic enough to be able to do this
abstraction...
Then I realize to make this really work in an abstracted platform
independent fashion, we should all just use Maven for our projects, and
let the target platform sort out how to get that stuff distributed and
installed.
--
Chris Hubick
mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.hubick.com/
