"Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Well, I worked on it some more yesterday, ended up reading over the
> >autoconf manual some more. I'm kinda ticked about a couple of things.
> >
> >1. automake has extremely poor support for java
>
> Yes, I agree. One thing we definitely need to do in autoconf is detect
> guavac which, right now, is the only way to compile java.io and probably
> most of the rest of the stuff. Then figure out how to make automake use
> that. (I think it's just a javac variable).
I'll look into it and try to find the variable.
> >2. I don't know how you, Paul, or John compile your native code and
> > Java code so that everything works (and can be tested)
>
> Look at java.net. It builds, installs and works correctly. There are a
> number of hardcoded items built into the Makefile.am for the native code
> (such as how to build stubs files and JNI headers) that will need to be
> replaced though.
Okay, I'll look at it.
> >4. Not sure what to do about the libtool problem you and Paul talked
> > about on the list some time ago.
>
> This is a killer. We might have to patch libtool to make it do what we
> want. Apparently the interlibrary dependency functionality used to be
> included, but was removed. Hopefull the code is still there and could be
> easily re-enabled. (Not an ideal solution, but one that would work).
According to the web page you sent us to, not sure I can find that
again, the code can be re-enabled with a two line patch which the
author has been sent a few times as a bug report. I personally think
whatever code that was there should be enabled simply because
something is better than nothing, and presumably adequate for our
needs. I looked at automake 1.3b yesterday and didn't see any new
Java functionality.
Brian
--
|-------------------------------|Software Engineer
|Brian Jones |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |http://www.nortel.net
|http://www.classpath.org/ |------------------------------
