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

["Sevan / Venture37" <venture37%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 30 September 2016 at 10:21, David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On 30 September 2016 at 09:52, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>> 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 :)

Ok, I should've double checked things before sending out that initial
email, turns out we had a mixture of GCC packages where gcc-java
options was enabled by default or not.
It's now not enabled by default on the packages which previously had it.
I've also added a comment explaining why as requested.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2016/09/30/msg147261.html


Sevan