Michael Scherer wrote: > Why include gcj in fact ? > > I wondered about this when I took a look at some Java packages (e.g. maven) to see how easy they would be to upgrade. A huge amount of complexity was introduced by the desire of the existing RPMs to produce a gcj version of the tool involved.
I can certainly see the appeal of gcj as "compiled java" for some target audiences even if most of us developers can't afford not to be developing and testing with more mainstream JDKs, but it's not clear to me that gcj needs to be a part of the install for every Java-based tool. I'm not that familiar with gcj, but I wonder if there couldn't be separate packages which recompile individual tools under it where appropriate in some automated fashion rather than forcing every Java tool packager to do this.
