Hi,
I am afraid we are not communicating very constructively.
We might have to start from scratch since somehow we keep missing each
others points. Let me try one last time to point out what I find
important facts when deciding how to create a java policy for Debian.
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 20:15, Jan Schulz wrote:
> >> Yes, *if* I do that. Currently I have not done it and this proposal is
> >> not about compile to native.
> >But I also pointed out how to get it working with a traditional byte
> >code interpreter <http://www.klomp.org/mark/gij_eclipse/>.
>
> But this is completely besite the point that we are here discussing a
> policy for using 'java byte code interpreters'. If you want to have
> 'compiled to native' java packages, then file a bug against the
> packages, which you want and ask the maintainer to do it. Packages,
> which will do that will use the normal debian policy to do it.
Sorry? Above I explain how to get eclipse running with an INTERPRETER
since you seem to like that more but you keep on arguing against native
compiled code. Immediately after this paragraph you quote I say:
The point that I am trying to make is not that you should do it
all by compiling to native applications and libraries (even
though I think that will be the future). If you think that goes
to far, to fast then everything that works by compiling to
native code will also work by compiling to byte code and then
use a free byte code interpreter. When you do that you might get
a better policy. Just look at what free applications and
libraries there are written in the java programming language and
see what is possible at this moment with free tools that Debian
can actually package and distribute.
Why do you ignore that?
After that I show which kind of things are currently possible with free
vms. And that this can almost all be done on a current Debian system
(since I have done it myself). On a recent Debian system just checkout
rhug <http://sources.redhat.com/rhug/> and do a ./configure && make.
> >> the 'unfree interface' versions. If we get that for free, I don't se
> >> ethe point in denying this fact to the user.
> >Since the user doesn't get that for free. They have to install non-free
> >proprietary software which they cannot use according to the DFSG. They
> >might even have to accept licensing terms which make it impossible to
> >help others working on free replacements!
>
> And? If the users chooses to do so, it's their choice. I don't think
> that we should *force* them not to.
I didn't say that you should force anybody to do anything.
I just pointed out that there is a cost associated with the choice.
A cost that I think is to high for people who choose Debian because of
the DFSG.
> >That is a good starting point. I am sure that I or other gcj hackers
> >would love to help you make the gcj compiled eclipse the best eclipse
> >out there. Please bring on the bug reports!
>
> I will do that, once I have time again to spend a complete weekend on
> that. And after all the RH patches have made it into the gcc in
> unstable.
Note that for almost everything besides eclipse (the long list of 20+
programs/libraries that you also just ignored) can already be compiled
with the gcj that is currently in Deebian (that includes tomcat, ant and
all their dependencies). And for an interpreted eclipse you need only
one missing patch to libgcj.
> >> Currently almost every java app is in contrib: eclipse, tomcat, ant.
> >All the examples you list can soon move into main if the packagers make
> >them work and test with free implementations. If Red Hat can do this,
> >why can't Debian?
>
> Because RH pays someone for this work?
No, rhug and the naoko packaging work are volunteer projects. Red Hat
did have some people who worked on the compiler to get Eclipse running
though.
> I will not simple drop eclipse
> into main until I think it will work as good as I expect it. 'just
> startup' is not good enough.
Have you even tried it? If their are real bugs running it I would love
to hear about them. I am not a heavy eclipse user myself (heay, we have
Emacs :) so bug reports from users like yourself would be very helpful.
Really, it takes less then half an hour to get an impression of how good
the system is if you just follow the 5 easy steps pointed out in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2003/debian-java-200309/msg00056.html
> >> Yes, because tomcat and eclipse build-depend on BD java.
> >Then those packages are currently not part of Debian...
> >I don't see your point.
>
> But they still have to comply to the debian policy and in this case
> the debian java policy.
You seem to be satisfied with a policy that is only really useful for
contrib and non-free. Two things which are not part of Debian (and which
I personally have never even used). So lets just agree to disagree on
the importance of this policy.
Cheers,
Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part