Re: Thoughts on building lang/gcc packages without Java support

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On 30 September 2016 at 09:52, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:43:41AM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
>> On 30 September 2016 at 01:19, Sevan / Venture37 <venture37%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>> > On 29 September 2016 at 14:48, David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> wrote:
>> >> Java could be split out into a separate package, (possibly depending
>> >> on the base gcc package).
>> >
>> > but the separate package would still be attempted when running bulk builds.
>> >
>> > I was proposing the following change at the lang/gcc packages.
>>
>> [...removing java from the default build options]
>>
>> That would remove it from bulk builds for all platforms, and make it
>> unavailable to binary package users. If it were a separate package
>> then you could selectively exclude it from the bulk builds of slower
>> platforms.
>
> I don't think gcj works well enough to justify the expensive.

Not having used it I was being conservative...

Then providing there is a comment to that effect in options explaining
why its not enabled I'm certainly happy with the plan to just disable
it by default :)