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. Andrew.
