On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:24:52AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit : > > > This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs). > > Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj > in Jessie.
Bad, but other packages broken is not a reason to break more. > What are the Java applications we want/need on these archs? We should *any* Java application which is built on/for kfreebsd-* (which has native stuff) or _all (where it's available on kfreebsd-*, too) > probably document them and ensure their dependencies are not updated in > a way that renders them incompatible with gcj. And when the transition You man Conflicts: gcj, gcj-jdk? :) > to Java 9 starts these packages could be compiled with the Eclipse > compiler instead of javac. The problem is not (only) compilation, but also runtime. Lo for example has stuff disabled on gcj-builds because it does not work and some Java commons libs now need 1.6 to build and run etc... Anyway, I *do* see your point but not *now*, so short before the freeze. A loads of packages probably need changes to disable Java, get binary packages removed, etc. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140716092424.gq23...@rene-engelhard.de
