Andrew Overholt wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:21 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Conrad Meyer wrote: >>> On Wednesday 15 April 2009 10:11:18 am Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >>>> Here is the original thread: >>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2008-November/msg000 >>>> 21.html >>>> >>>> So, shall we or shall we not? >>>> >>>> * Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>> Andrew Overholt wrote: >>>>>> Back when we wrote the initial Java packaging guidelines, we said that >>>>>> packagers *should* include GCJ AOT bits. Should we remove this >>>>>> requirement for Fedora 11 and beyond? >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> This is a bit premature. We still don't have the OpenJDK JIT for PPC and >>>>> ARM arches. We're working hard on it but it's not ready yet for >>>>> prime-time. Without the JIT, OpenJDK is crushingly slow on these arches. >>>> Any progress on these parts? >>> http://gbenson.net/ <-- That's the guy working on it. It seems to be making a >>> lot of progress, but I don't know if it's ready to ship (probably not?). >> Lots of progress, not yet ready. > > At what point do we decide to drop gcj bits regardless of the status of > Shark? (I'm honestly asking here and not trying to troll) As soon as we want to hurt the people using gcj. Andrew. -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
