From: pgsql at tomd.cc (Tom Dunstan)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:55:15 -0500
Subject: [Pljava-dev] Working on 1.4 beta release
In-Reply-To: <474306CA.2040005@tada.se>
References: <Pine.BSO.4.64.0711190252450.14611@leary.csoft.net>
	<47418556.2070804@tada.se>
	<ca33c0a30711200643s13204639i37f2a3f57b2e849c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ca33c0a30711200648x6cac4bbfq670fd86667093c38@mail.gmail.com>
	<474306CA.2040005@tada.se>
Message-ID: <ca33c0a30711200955x218f26e0m8afd0956e22edcda@mail.gmail.com>

On Nov 20, 2007 11:09 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas at tada.se> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure I was able to compile pljava against a 1.5 JDK and run
> > it against a 1.6 one. So I don't think we should need to build it for
> > more than one JVM.
> That's assuming that we don't want to support GCJ. That's equal to
> adding a requirement to install a JVM.

Fair point. I think long term the need to support GCJ will probably go
away, however. OpenJDK/IcedTea will basically replace it. Redhat are
already shipping IcedTea in Fedora 8, and I expect other distros to
follow. I think the days of Linux distros not shipping with a decent
JDK by default are coming to an end. Yay!

That's not to say that someone couldn't compile against GCJ if they
like. But I doubt that it'll be a useful thing to prebuild binaries
for.

> Perhaps an idea would be to provide binary support for the latest, or
> the latest two? I.e. if you want older, build your own?

Sure. If we start getting requests to support older backend releases,
then we can revise the decision.


[Stuff about building binaries]

> Great! Would you like to be added to the project so that you can upload
> files there?

Yes, thanks. Hmm, I wasn't actually registered on pgfoundry. Now
registered as tomd.

Cheers

Tom