On 15:58 Tue 05 May , Andrew Haley wrote: > Jerry James wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Packages should generally be buildable on both. If they're not, they > >> can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk. > > > > I've had to do this for a couple of my packages that build fine with > > gcj, but whose documentation is not produced in an acceptable manner > > by sinjdoc. It doesn't handle javadocs for annotation definitions, > > for one thing. > > Yes, sinjdoc is rather old. If it doesn't do the job, then you'll have > to mark your package as dependent on openjdk. > > Andrew. > > -- > fedora-devel-java-list mailing list > fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list Apologies for the off-topic question, but why is sinjdoc being used rather than gjdoc? Neither are preferable over javadoc if available, but gjdoc is at least known to be able to build the GNU Classpath documentation and is maintained (now as part of gcj). FWIW, in theory, there's actually no reason the langtools (tools.jar) from OpenJDK couldn't be provided for archs using gcj. I've certainly run the tools on Classpath VMs in the past. -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
