Hi! <I am starting from scratch because our mails are getting too long> I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy and I really admire your work you do in that area. In my initial mail I already proposed that "not meeting the criteria" is just a bug, maybe even RC in some cases. I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that aside of Kaffe, the other free JVMs use indirectly (like gcj) or directly one single source of it's classpath lisbrary - GNU Classpath. I really doubt if this project has reached 80% of what java 1.2 (especially in the area of graphical interfaces) should be. I think that *I* would use GNU Classpath as the 100% here (then we can have JVMs that support more than 100% ;-). But I don't really expect you to write it down to the policy. About SableVM - I can only say that currently SableVM is not able to use all of the features of GNU Classpath. But OTOH I am sure it will get better. It's being worked on. But getting back to the topic. You can treat my mail as an objection because it's still not really clear what the proposed change in Java Policy would gain us. It's still vague. It seem to need more detailed description or no changes at all. I'd agree to discuss it... probably on d-java? - yes. As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way: 1. Define exactly what requirements must be met for JVM to be able to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine, java*-runtime etc. 2. Just file bugs on JVM when the program you want to run - doesn't work. As usual. Nothing new. The bug will either get fixed or not. The only question is whether it's RC (or a set of bugs can be treated as RC) or not. That's sth. we *could* clarify. One question that is bugging me all the time and I am really curious what's the correct answer: Do we actually have a problem? Will having exact policy in this area gain us anything? (Read: Do we rally want our free JVMs to be either kept out of testing or kept w/o Provides: that can bring them to real live in many uses?) Regards Grzegorz B. Prokopski PS: I'll wait to see what other have to say on that topic. -- Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> Debian http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature