-----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(a)zarb.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDKzNdarJDwJ6gwowRAs1TAJwLfSy85/D677AE5H1CUdLxHBeWugCffKBa
acnPAK10RTTboaIjOXzwPKY=
=EZp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----