Re: Build and install without compiling java files?

[Michael Koch]

Am Freitag, 26. November 2004 18:02 schrieb Archie Cobbs:
> C. Brian Jones wrote:
> >>I think there is no real need for it. It just bloats the source
> >>tarball. All sources are included inside to tarball to build it.
> >
> > Actually there is a pretty good reason to have the built classes
> > distributed.  The fact is that results vary according to which
> > "free" and broken compiler you use to compile Classpath.  None of
> > them really pass Jacks that I know of.  New 1.5 features aren't
> > supported anywhere in a production ready and easily available
> > compiler (as in is already part of a popular distribution), and
> > we thankfully don't include those in the main branch yet.
> >
> > And actually including the glibj.zip is a very popular thing, at
> > least from actual users.  For the rest of us who would rather
> > change or fix things it matters very little.  Again this can
> > probably be solved by someone with a lot of initiative making
> > something available to easily integrate into jpackage
> > environments or the like to handle the actual distribution
> > requirements vs. the developer requirements to only ship source
> > and no binaries.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm an actual user :-) and would like to see
> it remain, along with a ./configure flag added allowing installing
> it without rebuilding it. This would particularly help with people
> using JC because when people build Classpath with the "wrong" Java
> compiler, this causes all the pre-generated C source files that
> ship with JC to become invalid and have to be regenerated, which
> takes a long time.

What about installation specific files like 
gnu.classpath.Configuration (I think this is the only one 
currently) ? Not all stuff is overwritable. Configuration.DEBUG comes 
to my mind.


Michael
-- 
Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/