-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chris Hubick wrote:
> 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...
It mentions gcj because it's for gcj only. And gcj could be autodetected
by a macro too %(test -x %{_bindir}/gcj...). Remember that any
jpackage.org build server is also a platform with native binaries, and
probably has gcj installed. The existence of the gcj binary doesn't
imply someone necessarily wants native packages.
> 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...
Anthony Green has written gcjlib, but it is cumbersome to have to patch
every single build.xml, which is why a script that does the same thing
is generally preferred. But for upstream projects, it might make sense
for them to adopt gcjlib.
- --
Sincerely,
David Walluck
<david@xxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDKzNdarJDwJ6gwowRAs1TAJwLfSy85/D677AE5H1CUdLxHBeWugCffKBa
acnPAK10RTTboaIjOXzwPKY=
=EZp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
