[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JVM Registry (was: CLASSPATH and Jikes)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Well that was fun, somebody unsubscribed me from debian-java; the first I 
heard was the successful unsubscription notification.  As a result I nearly 
missed this.  But anyway:

> I am attempting to resurrect both my Kaffe package and my involvement
> therein. This JVM registry seems like a great idea. What would it take
> to move it forward?

I've now dredged up the full proposal I initially made over a year ago and put 
it up as http://people.debian.org/~bab/javareg/PROPOSAL.txt .

What I believe would need to happen is:

1) People agree on whether a JVM registry is in principle a good thing;
2) People agree on precisely what fields should be provided in the registry 
files, and whether these registry files should be conffiles or not;
3) The proposal is put into java policy;
4a) The various debian JVMs and compilers add registry files to their 
packages, while:
4b) The registry query scripts are added to java-common and tweaked/modified 
as necessary.

At which point other java packages can successfully start using this registry.

So.  How do people currently feel about (1)? ;-)

Btw, there was some discussion on all of this back in September/October 2001, 
you might want to browse the archives if you're interested in people's 
earlier reponses.

Ben.

- -- 

Ben Burton
benb@acm.org  |  bab@debian.org
Public Key: finger bab@db.debian.org

How can anyone have an understanding of the virgin if they don't
also have an understanding of the prostitute, the saint and sinner in one
body? Attempting to reconcile these opposing forces in my own nature is
my goal.
	- Tori Amos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9vxAZMQNuxza4YcERAofPAJ99+MhEPdq2iummNgasAmiSnu1R8gCdEHQw
YY3nbejfXeEV2D9i+1L5bxY=
=Fvuu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: