Re: JNI Installation Directories: Another push
Hi
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi, it's me yet again on this JNI issue.
>
> > My suggestion is that you start filing wishlist bugs against the jvm:s
> > and talk to blackdown folk (hi there! ;) ) or similar.
>
> Well, I filed these wishlist bugs, complete with wrapper scripts that would
> implement this JNI directory change, about three months ago. Bugs were filed
> against gij-3.2, kaffe, sablevm, jdk1.1 and ibm-jdk1.1-installer, and an
> email was also sent to the j2se1.4 maintainer (since this package does not
> use the debian BTS).
>
> In the intervening three months, absolutely nothing has been done for *any* of
> these virtual machines, with the single exception of gij-3.2 (which,
> incidentally, was the only virtual machine I know of that couldn't use the
> patch I sent three months ago since it didn't support -Djava.library.path,
> but which had a new upload within days of me providing a patch that
> circumvented the -Djava.library.path problem).
Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all?
> A week or so ago I submitted source-level patches to the other JVMs in main
> (kaffe and sablevm), i.e., patches which augment the JNI search path in the
> JVM itself instead of relying on a clever wrapper script. I haven't done
> this with the JVMs in non-free for the obvious reasons, but there are still
> the wrapper scripts I provided.
I'd like a source patch for java-common if you can provide such a beast.
Otherwise I'll try to make it myself. It is a lot easier to discuss if
you have the actual wordings. :)
> > When it has been implemented on some important jvm:s (like kaffe,
> > jdk1.1 and possibly j2re) I'll update the Debian policy.
>
> It becomes increasingly apparent to me that if we wait for this JNI path
> change to take place on "enough" JVMs, that this policy change will never
> happen.
You might be right here.
> People seem to agree that this policy change is a good thing and patches have
> been available for months. Can we just change policy now, upgrade these bugs
> from wishlist to something more important, and then let the JVMs catch up?
Might be a good solution. What do other people think about this?
Regards,
// Ola
> Ben. :)
>
> - --
>
> Ben Burton
> bab@debian.org
> Public Key: finger bab@db.debian.org
>
> When I started watching my behavior and seeing how I would control
> people, and how they would control me, it was awareness. I want awareness
> more than anything, and part of awareness is being able to honor the part
> of you that's Lady Macbeth.
> - Tori Amos
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+Q2XqMQNuxza4YcERAvwVAKCWJjEAdGj5LlFzH7U3pb89f3Dd7QCgh9QE
> oF7w4WBLwi6ntNaaUR4Z+hI=
> =QTH7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.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: