Re: PATCH RFA: Do not build java by default

[Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Jeff Law wrote:

> > I think that it should still be the case that if you break Java, and 
> > one of the Java testers catches you, you still have an obligation to 
> > fix the problem.  All we're changing is whether you build Java by 
> > default; nothing else.
> 
> Agreed.  I'd really like to see java removed from the default languages; 
> I just don't see the cost vs benefit justifies keeping java in the 
> default languages.

I'd like to reiterate a request from the summit that is related to the 
default languages discussion: Add Ada to the default languages in exchange 
for java+libjava.  It builds nicely parallel (and fairly quick), doesn't 
have a ghastly large runtime library, and tests a huge number of 
middle-end paths taken by no other language.

At the summit not many people were in favor of that, but I can't think of 
any logical reason for that.

(Of course it would be only added to the default languages if a host Ada 
compiler is already pre-existing.  I.e. we wouldn't add more 
requirements.)


Ciao,
Michael.