Re: The proposed java policy have now moved.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:40:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > 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.
Thanks.
> Some comments.
>
> "Main, contrib or non-free":
>
> - orp is another free JVM in main; this should be added to the list.
Ok I'll add that on next update.
> - 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.
Ok I'll do that.
> "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)?
Well I decided not to change that. The previous policy said that they
must be in /usr/share/java (or in the /usr/share/java/repository) but
I'll of course change it if people object. A should is probably better
and maybe add a note when it is not needed.
> 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.
I agree that the problems are serious. But I have not heard of any
consensus about it. I think we need more discussion and some more
code before I add it to the policy. I like the idéa. Actually I found out
that the java-virtual-machine-dummy and java-compiler-dummy had a similar
script. Just a lot simpler.
> 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. :)
Well I like the idéa. What do you want to add to the policy and what
do you want to add to the java-common package. I'm ready for that now. :)
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 584 36 LINKÖPING |
| +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: