Andrew Haley: > On 08/10/2010 11:10 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > >> > >> The sensible rule everyone seems to use is that if adding gcj support > >> doesn't require much effort, add it. If not, don't. > > > > As gcj is at 1.5 JVM level there is no point in having gcj support for > > packages that require Java 1.6. > > Yes, obviously. I don't quite understand the point you're making, > though: clearly if a package requires 1.6 then adding gcj support > requires much effort, so don't add it. The source code does not require 1.6. According to the documentation of the package, 1.2.2 is enough. (I haven't tried anything less than 1.5.) Originally I had 1.2.2 as a build requirement. When doing a build in a minimal environment, like mock, that requirement is met by the GCJ compiler. Compiling with the GCJ javac caused very many warnings, though, as my reviewer pointed out. The 1.6.0 javac didn't give all those warnings. So the reason there is a requirement of 1.6.0 (to be changed to 1:1.6.0) in there is to enforce that compiler to be used for compilation, from .java to .class. GCJ then, as I understand it, takes the .jar files and makes .so files from them. And that seems to work fine with .jar files made with 1.6.0. But maybe I'm doing things wrong here? Is there a better way to make sure the compilation is done with 1.6.0? Or shouldn't I do that at all? -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
