Re: [PATCH] gnu: gcj: remove broken symlink and stump binaries.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:

> This patch adds a build phase to GCJ removing a broken symlink and a
> couple of non-functional binaries, such as "gcc" or "g++".
>
> In a GCJ build these binaries are useless as GCJ is a GCC built only
> with Java support.  When GCJ is installed alongside gcc-toolchain, for
> example, there would be conflicts with GCJ's "gcc" stump binary
> shadowing the usable "gcc" binary from gcc-toolchain.
>
> Removing these binaries should be harmless as users of GCJ are unlikely
> to use "gcc" but "gcj" directly.

Sounds good.

> From 99b56cf4b17b1dbed7977dbce6e3c81fa4115aa7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:11:39 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: gcj: Remove broken symlink and conflicting files.
>
> * gnu/packages/gcc.scm (gcj)[arguments]: Add a build phase to remove a broken
>   symlink and generic stump binaries.

[...]

> +                (for-each delete-file
> +                          (map (cut string-append out <>)
> +                               '("/lib/jvm/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so"
> +                                 "/bin/c++"
> +                                 "/bin/cpp"
> +                                 "/bin/g++"
> +                                 "/bin/gcc"
> +                                 "/bin/gcc-ar"
> +                                 "/bin/gcc-nm"
> +                                 "/bin/gcc-ranlib"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-c++"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-4.8.4"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-ar"
> +                                 "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-nm"
> +                                 
> "/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-ranlib"))))

This is specific to x86_64-linux-gnu though.  Wouldn’t it be better to
use a white list instead, or maybe keep it a black list but use
find-files and regexps?

Thanks,
Ludo’.