On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:17:42 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy at gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I dont contribute code as a freenet dev, but i do package it for Gentoo > > linux and from that perspective, i have to strongly vote against gwt. > > That thing is a big beast with many included external libs, often even > > modified ones and a complex build system. I once tried to create a > > package for it, it took me many hours and there was still no good > > result. So unless this has greatly increased or someone else can provide > > a sane package for Gentoo, requiring this framework to build freenet > > would result in freenet being dropped from Gentoo as a package. > > I assume this would only be a problem if it was a requirement that the > Java-JavaScript compilation occurs during the Gentoo build process, rather > than just distributing the JavaScript already compiled - right?
If it's an official package it needs to be built from scratch. And iirc right now it is an official package. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20120307/812c3cc7/attachment.pgp>
