[fedora-java] Secondary review of a Java package

[Andrew Haley]

On 08/09/2010 10:11 PM, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
> Andrew Overholt:
>> I recommend looking at the Fedora Java packaging guidelines (you
>> probably already did this):
> 
> Yes.  I learned how to do the wrapper script using jpackage utilites
> from that page, for example.  Though it was a while ago, and there has
> been a number of changes to my package, so I reviewed the page again
> now.
> 
>> - do you really want the gcj stuff?
> 
> Well, that is a good example where I would appreciate advice from
> someone more experienced in Java packaging.
> 
> Originally I didn't have any GCJ support.  I didn't see any need.  But
> then David pointed out that
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines says that
> 
>   GCJ AOT bits SHOULD be built and included in packages.
> 
> "SHOULD" (assuming RFC 2119 interpretation) is pretty strong.  So I
> followed the instructions on the page and added the support.
> 
> But then in comment 20
> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985#c20) Chen Lei says
> that many Java packages have dropped GCJ support.  And now you ask if
> I want it.
> 
> I get the impression that the Wiki doesn't really reflect current
> practice.  Is that a correct understanding?  Is GCJ support to be
> considered optional nowdays, or maybe even deprecated?

It's not yet officially deprecated.  We argued a lot about that
wording, and came up with what you see.  Perhaps the best way to put
it is "nice to have, but not compulsory."  The situation is changing
continuously, with Power PC no longer a pimary architecture, but ARM
increasing importance.

The sensible rule everyone seems to use is that if adding gcj support
doesn't require much effort, add it.  If not, don't.

Andrew.