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: