Re: Policy change proposal - JVMs Provides: requirements
>>>>> "Grzegorz" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> writes:
Grzegorz> As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way:
Grzegorz> 1. Define exactly what requirements must be met for JVM
Grzegorz> to be able to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine,
Grzegorz> java*-runtime etc.
I think you mean legitimately (not legally) here, as as the filer of
the original bugs I'd suggest that meeting the published definitions
for the original jdk classes would be a good start. I filed these
bugs because basic functionality (support of the java.awt.* classes,
essential to any GUI work) was missing from two of the three JVMs that
claimed to support java1-runtime. As the details of the Java class
libraries are available in published form (see
<URL:http://java.sun.com/docs/books/chanlee/second_edition/vol1/> &
<URL:http://java.sun.com/docs/books/chanlee/second_edition/vol2/>), I
fail to understand how anyone implementing a Java runtime environment
can claim ignorance about what is or isn't required.
Yes, I understand that the opensource alternatives are playing
catch-up here, and yes, I understan that parts of the Java
specifications will always be troublesome due to the legal issues
involved. However, IMHO, that doesn't excuse us from lying to our
users by claiming things about certain packages that simply aren't
true.
<insert reference to quote from Linus' 1993 announce on Linux here>
--
Stephen
To Republicans, limited government means not assisting people they
would sooner see shoveled into mass graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn
Reply to: