Re: Integrating the FOSDEM 06 Draft into the Java Policy

[Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>]

On 23.03.2010 11:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Le mardi 23 mars 2010 à 10:26 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have compiled two patches against the current policy that I intend to
> > > apply Friday assuming there are no objections.
> > Nice work. Glad to see that finally evolving.
> >
> > Could you just add a few bit on the gcj part ?
> > * What it is/was ?
>
> Personally I felt the first paragraph of the gcj part was enough. To the
> best of my knowledge this is why the gcj stuff is. If you feel it is not
> enough (and the addition draft below does not help), then I will need
> some pointers to what you would like to see.
>
> That being said I think it would be easier to understand if I replaced
> "native code" with "machine code" and I intend to implement this with
> the next diff.
>
> > * Why it is no longer allowed ?
> > * What kind of information are expected to grant a packager the
> > permission to ship gcj-code
>
> Sure, what do you think of this:
>
> 	In the past gcj packages were added in order to improve
> 	performance of Java libraries and programs. However, this
> 	performance comes at the cost of size, extra compilation
> 	time and creates architecture dependent packages.

not only in the past.

> 	A request for permission to add gcj should packages should
> 	convince the Java Team that the performance boost of adding
> 	the gcj package or packages out-weights the disadvantages.

this is always true for archs not having vm with a JIT.

> 	The request and the permission may be limited to certain
> 	architectures.

that should be removed. there is a list of these archs in
/usr/share/gcj/debian_defaults which should be sourced in debian/rules.
it's fine to build these packages on every arch. the empty package doesn't hurt, 
and you won't have to make changes to the packaging if a new architecture is added.

the packages do make sense for architectures which only come with the ZeroVM in 
OpenJDK, and no JIT.

  Matthias