This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Remove separate tarballs
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:47:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: Remove separate tarballs
- References: <1305980537.775713961@www2.webmail.us> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105211620270.17692@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <BANLkTin=eZ1pZjFoQq9CaORnXCQZb77XZQ@mail.gmail.com> <656B3C57-C75A-4C02-BB14-296B4BB2061A@meta-innovation.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1105290303540.4357@gerinyyl.fvgr> <4DEE35A3.2020700@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1106151842030.11459@gerinyyl.fvgr>
On 16/06/11 01:43, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is
>>> on the verge of becoming practically irrelevant. As one datapoint, the
>>> entire FreeBSD Ports Collection has a single(!) port relying on GCJ.
>> It's not quite as irrelevant as you think: The IcedTea bootrapping
>> process that's used to port OpenJDK depends on gcj. The first thing
>> we have to do an any target is get gcj working. I'm doing that right
>> now.
>
> Agreed, but how many users of GCC (even those building GCC from
> scratch) do have a need for our Java support? I am pretty sure
> it's a minority, that's why I suggest to not put everything into
> one large tarball but of course leave it available.
There is a world of difference between not being used by many and
being practically irrelevant, which is what you claimed. gcj is not
irrelevant: it is still a crucial link in the free software
infrastructure. As long as it doesn't suffer bitrot, it doesn't much
matter whether gcj is a part of a single gcc tarball or not.
Andrew.