On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:38 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wielaard writes: > > > > :) I am not sure inserting ant in the build process will improve things. > > Me either. I'd like to fix the build dependencies so that make -j > could speed things up on machines with many processors, but switching > to Ant wouldn't help that at all. > > > But autoconfiscating openjdk would be nice. > > That would effectively be a fork, unless we could persuade upstream to > accept autoconf as well. What would the benefits of autoconf be?
It would potentially make it much more portable like we have with for example gnu classpath & gcj (although I keep seeing complaints on other lists from people who cannot make things work on things like solaris or aix - please report those bugs upstream people! - so maybe these days autoconf isn't as sure proof a way to get things portable as it used to be, or maybe GNU/Linux really is the only interesting posix-like system left). But, yeah, it was also a bit of a joke, I regard antifiscation and autoconfiscation equally likely to happen (although at least the later seems to be in the works by at least Andrew and Dalibor for the tools and javac in openjdk). Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
