From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 11 18:25:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from newman2.bestweb.net (newman2.bestweb.net [209.94.102.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399BF37B433 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from okeeffe.bestweb.net (okeefe.bestweb.net [209.94.100.110]) by newman2.bestweb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83CF23291; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by okeeffe.bestweb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id A963C9F266; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:11:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:00:27 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Mikhail Teterin Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Message-Id: <20020212021139.A963C9F266@okeeffe.bestweb.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want to > > turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with this. > > There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes to compile on a fast > > 1.2 GHz Athlon. > > That's the thing. gcc30 port, essentially, installs a copy of the > compiler already available as part of the base. No it doesn't. 3.0.3 is a very different compiler from 2.95.3. > But the base is missing > gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port. And the base system does not NEED a java compiler. > Can we have those installed, at least, to ease the work of the future > porter? Nope. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message