Re: Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
Hi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> --- Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > Well then we have to have an alternative approach to
> > this.
> >
> > javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
This is the java.lang.* and such things that needs to
exist for java to work (at all?).
> > differences between versions there)
> > javaX?-awt
> > javaX?-swing
> >
> > Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes,
> > java1-awt and java1-swing
> >
> > Is that a better proposal. I'll make that package if
> > it is accepted.
>
> Only so far that Swing never officially was part of
> JDK 1.1, but there was a swing implementation for JDK
> 1.1 that could be downloaded as an extension. For
Ohh well I ment that swing should be part of java2, or course.
> extra fun, I assume it was slightly different from the
> Swing shipped with Java 1.2.0, as it was labelled
> swing-1.1.1 FCS.
>
> I think trying to formalize what features free VMs
> support by breaking the feature set into smaller bits
> and pieces is a sure way to end up having
> javax-with-reflection-but-without-the-necessary-security-checks
> and similar tags to label deficiences of particular
> implementations instead of fixing them.
I think that major new things (i.e. swing and awt) from
java1 (from 1.0, or maybe only from 1.1 and above) should
be broken down.
> Blindly assuming that an application will work on one
> free VM because it works on another is, at the current
> state of things, also dangerous.
Well if it does not work, it is a bug.
> If I may make a proposal, as someone who's just a
> lurker here, I'd say remove the 'provides
> javax-runtime' tag from the free VM releases that
> obviously lack the functionality of the tagged JDK
> release, according to japitools. But only allow Java
Yes, maybe.
> programs to get into 'debain free' if they explicitely
> name in their requirements a free VM as the default
> choice and the maintainer has gone through the work of
> testing it, and getting it to run with either kaffe,
> gcj, sablevm, or some other free VM included in
> 'debian-free'.
It this criteria is not met that is a severe bug and the
package should be removed from main and emmediatly put
in contrib.
> This approach provides two benefits: on one hand, the
> free VMs get more testing and bug fixing work, then
> they would otherwise. On the other hand, having a
> debian maintainer state that his package works with a
> free VM is a badge of honor for both the free VM and
> the maintainer. Given that the VM developers usually
This follows from the normal debian policy and so no
extra things has to be written in the java policy.
> can't test everything all the time, it would provide
> additional insurance to the users that the free VMs
> they got on their debian systems actually work for
> something ;)
>
> The downsides are probably many. As I said, I am not a
> debian developer, so I don't know if putting this
> additional burden of work on the maintainers is a good
> idea or not, if it's in line with other debian
> policies, etc.
It is already in line with the current policies so you
are perfectly correct. :)
Regards,
// Ola
> best regards,
> dalibor topic
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
> --
> 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: