Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
> > Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a program i would like to package (josm), only it
> > > doesn't compile with gcj, but it does with icedtea. Can this
> > > go into fedora?
> > During the Fedora 8 Features FESCo meeting, the issue of build
> > requiring IcedTea came up. The informal policy decision was
> > that packages may build require IcedTea, but must still run on
> > the base Fedora architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64)
> > without requiring external packages. For Fedora 8, that meant
> > packages had to run on ppc/ppc64 libgcj. For Fedora 9,
> > IcedTea's ppc/ppc64 interpreter should suffice. So while
> > ideally the package would build on both, pragmatically I'd say
> > go ahead and build require IcedTea.
> I understand that, but it would surely be better in this case to get
> the fix into libgcj. It's not particularly difficult to do, and
> surely we can be allowed the short time it would take to get the fix
> in, and then the package would run everywhere. Sure, it's tempting to
> take the easy road, but in this case it's not hugely difficult to do
> the right thing.
Yes, I'm working on a fix for GNU Classpath. However, understand
that it does take a non-trivial amount of time to get a libgcj fix
into Fedora, through the GNU Classpath -> gcc HEAD -> Red Hat gcc
branch -> Fedora Rawhide chain -- several days at a minimum. I'd
rather not hold up Sander's progress waiting for the fix to land.
OK, that's fair, but it's going to be *really* easy to let things in
Classpath slide. I am going to keep on top of this: apart from ppc
issues, there are also the secondary architectures ARM, IA-64, and
SPARC. I'd like to keep gcj going in good shape until we have a
reasonable portability story for OpenJDK.
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903