This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: `make install` should install the info files in java
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: `make install` should install the info files in java
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 04 Apr 2001 13:00:24 -0600
- Cc: per at bothner dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <871yr9n5s3.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <20010403173045H.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
Mark> - If it's going to be installed, it should be called `jar'. I agree
Mark> with Per that `fastjar' is analagous to `make'. I'm assuming
Mark> that the command-line options are similar to the same utility
Mark> from other vendors.
I think this is a choice that the fastjar maintainer should make, not
one that we should make.
Mark> - If it's not going to be installed, then it should not be in the
Mark> source tree. It is a program, like `make' or `bison' that you
Mark> have to download and build in order to build GCC. If we're not
Mark> installing it, then `configure' should just look for `jar'. If
Mark> it finds it, good; otherwise, it should say "Can't build GCJ;
Mark> you must install jar".
I think this will make it less likely that people will build the Java
compiler. However, if the choice is between this and installing
fastjar, then I'm for this. Installing fastjar implies that we
support it in some way. But we don't, and I don't think we want to.
Tom