On 15:58 Tue 05 May , Andrew Haley wrote:
Jerry James wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Packages should generally be buildable on both. If they're not, they
>> can be marked, e.g. as dependent on openjdk.
> I've had to do this for a couple of my packages that build fine with
> gcj, but whose documentation is not produced in an acceptable manner
> by sinjdoc. It doesn't handle javadocs for annotation definitions,
> for one thing.
Yes, sinjdoc is rather old. If it doesn't do the job, then you'll have
to mark your package as dependent on openjdk.
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
Apologies for the off-topic question, but why is sinjdoc being used rather
than gjdoc? Neither are preferable over javadoc if available, but gjdoc
is at least known to be able to build the GNU Classpath documentation and
is maintained (now as part of gcj).
FWIW, in theory, there's actually no reason the langtools (tools.jar)
from OpenJDK couldn't be provided for archs using gcj. I've certainly
run the tools on Classpath VMs in the past.
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net
Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8