Mon Dec 2 22:46:00 GMT 2002
Anthony Green wrote:
> That being said, there's something that's bothering me about his
> proposal. For one, my model of building rhug packages where all
> dependent packages are in an uninstalled build tree isn't addressed,
> is it?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm guessing it's the
problem of trying to build xerces in rhug, using sax/dom that
are incompatible with the installed ones? In that case the
installed jar files will not be found, and so we won't link
against the installed .so's either.
> Jar file names also don't map to gcj-style shared library names (unless
> we repackage every "standard" jar file before installing).
Actually, what I thought we should do is find the name of the
shared library in the .jar itsef, in one of the "meta"-files
of the jar file. This als solves the problem of installing
a jar file only in an extension directory.
I.e. if we find a a class in a .jar, we look to see if the
jar has a "shared-library-name" attribute. (This attribute
would probably be stored somehow in a non-.class member of
the .jar.) If the attribute is missing, we assume the jar was
installed by a non-gcj package, and we default is_compiled_class
to 1. Otherwise, we default is_compiled_class to 0, and we add
the named shared library to the linker command line.
> What about simply annotating jar files with info about installed shared
> library representations? Maybe we can simply add a `gcj.config' file to
> installed jar files which describe class to shared library mappings to
> the compiler.
Either of those work.
More information about the Java