Re: The proposed java policy have now moved.
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
Wondeful! Looks great.
Some comments.
"Main, contrib or non-free":
- orp is another free JVM in main; this should be added to the list.
- guavac does not exist in unstable; note that jikes claims to replace
it. Will guavac be released with woody? At any rate, since it's no
longer in unstable, I suggest this be removed from the list of free
compilers.
"Java programs":
- More of a question than a comment. This section says that apps *must*
put their classes in /usr/share/java. Is this true even for apps that
should never share their classes (such as apps whose classes are all in
the default package)?
And regarding the proposed JVM registry, what is to become of this
proposal? I believe the problems it addresses are serious, and the only
way it will resolve them is if the JVMs actually register themselves,
which pretty much means the JVM registry would have to be in policy.
If the proposed registry is considered good enough for this (the specs I
mailed out were quite precise as far as the registry itself goes) then
I'll have a go at implementing some of these helper scripts. But I'm not
prepared to spend the time doing it if I receive the same reaction as I
did for the previous sets of scripts I posted to address the same problem,
which was complete apathy from all but about two people. :)
Ben.
Reply to: