Make building with GCJ work

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Previously jing and trang could be build with GCJ. The code to do this
lives in the gcj directory. It worked by running a hairy script (gcj/dist)
which builds two .tar.gz files, which can then be built using normal Linux
build tools (both rpmbuild, autoconf, make). Although the net result is
convenient, the script is a big maintenance headache. Also I am more
interested in deb packaging (mainly for Ubuntu) rather than rpm packaging.

Also the question has to be asked of whether there is sufficient benefit to
a gcj build to make the effort worthwhile. I doubt it will run much faster.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jjc.jclark.com on 16 Oct 2008 at 2:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Some distributions still prefer (as in SHOULD not MUST) being able to build 
with gcj.

Original comment by matej.c...@gmail.com on 30 Nov 2008 at 9:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Does the build with GCJ still work? 

I checked out the latest source code (should correspond to 20091111) using SVN, 
and tried the following to generate the .tar.gz file:

1. in the "jing-trang-read-only" directory, I modified the "ant" script to use 
the file "build-gcj.xml". 
2. ran "./ant"
3. got the first build failure error "Target 'test' does not exist in the 
project 'jing-trang-gcj'. It is used from target 'all'". To bypass this error, 
I commented out the line "<target name="all" depends="test, trang-test, 
validate".>" in build-gcj.xml.
4. ran "./ant" again
5. the build failed again, and the second error is 
"gcj:
 [exec] You are in the wrong directory"
Here, the gcj target runs the "gcj/dist" script, which checks for the existence 
of Jing source file in the directory.

The first error is due to missing targets in the xml file which I can see are 
indeed absent. The second is due to the expected jing/trang source code not 
found "jing-trang-read-only" directory. Both errors make sense to me, as I can 
see the targets/files are indeed missing.

Am I doing something incorrect? Or the build is indeed broken? 

Thanks for any help I can get on this issue!

Karen

Original comment by wang.kar...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 2:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

No it doesn't work.  I don't think there's much point any more.

JDK is open source.  The gcj built binaries depend on a huge shared library, 
and don't start up or run much faster.

Original comment by jjc.jclark.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 2:37

• Added labels: Priority-Low
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Completely agree, I think this could be easily closed as WONTFIX (or 
SHOULDBEFIXEDBYANYBODYWHOCARES ;)). Everybody should be able to have OpenJDK 
available these days.

Original comment by matej.c...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 8:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jjc.jclark.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 9:32

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for clarifying!

Original comment by wang.kar...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 6:21