Re: Policy change proposal - JVMs Provides: requirements
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> Hi!
Hi again.
> <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.
Thanks a lot! I appriciate it.
> In my initial mail I already proposed that "not meeting the criteria"
> is just a bug, maybe even RC in some cases.
Hmm ... I thought you objected that it can be RC. If so then we are telling
the same things but in different ways. :)
> 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.
Hmm. It it that bad. I was not aware of that actually. In some way
we have to define java1-runtime in a good way. Define it against
a moving target (like classpath) might not be a good thing. On the
other hand it might be the best way...
> 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.
And I forgot to tell that I admire everyone that are working to make
a free alternative. I'm sure it will be better.
> 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.
Ok. It is a good point.
> 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.
Let's continue on debian-java, then.
> 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.
Then we can agree on that. The problem is to define it... :(
> 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.
No nothing new.
> 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.
Yes that has to be clarified.
> 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?
Good question! :)
> Will having exact policy in this area gain us anything?
Yes I actually think so. The thing we gain is that users can be less
confused. If they apt-get things, they tend to think that things should
work. If they by (mistake?) got another virtual-machine for their java
app they can be pretty disapointed. I become that from time to time... :)
This gain nothing to us, but something to the end user.
> (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?)
Well actually I do not think it is a good thing to release with
a provides line that is not really functional. But I can also accept
the other posistion, that says that this is better than non-free alternatives.
I agree on both and I'm no longer so sure about this.
What do other people think about this issue?
Best regards,
// Ola
> 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/
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +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: