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
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
Mark> - If it's going to be installed, it should be called `jar'.
Mark> I agree with Per that `fastjar' is analagous to `make'. I'm
Mark> assuming that the command-line options are similar to the
Mark> same utility from other vendors.
Tom> I think this is a choice that the fastjar maintainer should
Tom> make, not one that we should make.
Fair enough.
Mark> - If it's not going to be installed, then it should not be
Mark> in the source tree. It is a program, like `make' or `bison'
Mark> that you have to download and build in order to build GCC.
Mark> If we're not installing it, then `configure' should just
Mark> look for `jar'. If it finds it, good; otherwise, it should
Mark> say "Can't build GCJ; you must install jar".
Tom> I think this will make it less likely that people will build
Tom> the Java compiler. However, if the choice is between this
Tom> and installing fastjar, then I'm for this. Installing
Tom> fastjar implies that we support it in some way. But we
Tom> don't, and I don't think we want to.
OK, I think that's reasonable.
So, my current thinking is that we should a) not install fastjar, and
b) not include it in the source tree. That will indeed cause less
people to install the Java compiler -- but that's not necessarily a
bad thing, since anyone who wants to use GCJ can easily install
fastjar first, or get a binary package. And, we can still ask/require
that GCC maintainers install this package so that they test the Java
compiler.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com