Re: Policy change proposal - JVMs Provides: requirements
--- Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz
> B. Prokopski wrote:
> > 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...
Well, seems like you guys are looking for some numbers
;) Check the japitools JDK API compatibility pages at
http://rainbow.netreach.net/~sballard/japi/
> > 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... :(
I don't understand the term 'legally' in this context.
What legal requirements are there?
best regards,
dalibor topic
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Reply to: