Re: Co-maintaining Kaffe
The only reason that my mail went to -devel was your request to remove Kaffe
from seven architectures without consulting me. You made that request to
-devel and that request required this response. If you feel foolish then lay
the blame closer to the source.
The last significant change to Kaffe from a *packaging* perspective was
migrating it to DBS and that was my work. Your recent NMUs (which have been
insanely numerous) disabled DBS by simply renaming the patches directory to
"no-patches". That isn't adding value and was done without a byte of email
Without sarcasm I will tell you again that I appreciate your enthusiasm and
want to work with you. Simply be aware that I will not be ignored and will
not tolerate haphazard changes that are not cleared with me first. There is
nothing unreasonable about that attitude and nothing that is out of line with
For the time being I will leave you as an Uploader on the condition that you
communicate your intended changes with me first and only upload when I am
grossly unresponsive (ie. more than a week). My preference is to receive
changes in the form of a DBS patch.
I think that the rest of this can be handled on -java. I invite -devel to
return to its regularly scheduled flame war.
ps. Developers with platform specific experience who would like to see Kaffe
remain on sparc, os390, alpha and so forth should please try to get Kaffe to
build from source. Even if the JIT won't compile on your platform there may
be hope for the interpreter. Drop me a line if you have interest or success
On Tuesday 02 March 2004 20:12, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> I got no mail from Ean about this problem before the mail on the
> list(s)! (See my response).
> Also, I don't know why it's on -devel? kaffe is -java related... Why was
> it cross posted?.. I do read both lists (and I also receive the mail
> personally!). Who is talking about following the rules? ;-)
Ean Schuessler, CTO