Le 01/07/2014 08:26, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
DJ Lucas wrote:
On June 30, 2014 2:42:58 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]>
wrote:
If there is a use case, then I can easily change my opinion, but
right now the only justification seems to be completeness when
building gcc.
> Silly argument, but strictly for arguments sake, it's the only path
> to build java from source without a pre-existing binary in place. We
> don't address that path in the book, and it is a royal pain to set up
> a proper build environment, but our original binary OJDK 6 was built
> using gcj. All subsequent iterations (including our 7 builds, and
> soon enough 8) have stemmed from that.
Well we start LFS from an existing distro. I suppose we could code in
binary and create an assembler, then build a compiler, etc. Sorta the
same logic.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. There's no need to go back to
the bottom.
-- Bruce
Back in business,
(Solved my mail problem. My ISP had decided to SPAM some of the mails
and not others, and put them in the webmail trash instead of sending
them to me. It was my first time on their site: I do not like webmail's,
because you see more ads than mails)
Concerning gcj, I have been pretty disappointed to see that the
development had stalled, but that may be easily understood since the
developers went to OJDK. As DJ says, the only use I see is that you can
build OJDK "from scratch" with gcj. Whether it is silly or not is a
question about where "scratch" is, when we say "linux from scratch".
Certainly coding in binary and create an assembler would be just silly,
but relying on too many external resources certainly defeats the goal of
LFS (for example why not use gentoo if you want to build yourself, and a
regular distro if you just want to use the software, and so on). So
"scratch" is in between... Initially, that was my proposition to not
rely on an external resource to build OJDK. Since I saw that nobody was
really enthusiastic, I lost my interest. OTOH, the page is almost ready
to be added to the book.
Concerning Ada, it is really different: the package is mature, Ada is
used by some category of persons (in aerospace industry at least), and
it does not add any new dependencies, so I think we may have it in the
book.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
