Remove separate tarballs

Andrew Haley
Thu Jun 16 09:14:00 GMT 2011

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.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list