Re: Sponsor for a bootstrapping Java++ compiler
On Saturday 19 April 2003 19:31, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> I am the upstream author of the Nice language, which is an extension of
> Java with many advanced features. It is released under the GPL.
> Homepage: http://nice.sourceforge.net
Looks nice ;) Though I have to say that what it tries to do does not have to
imply all the syntactic changes I see, or is all that really necessary?
Making so many changes to the syntax makes moving from Java<->Nice
too difficult.
> Being a faithful Debian user, I started building and distributing debian
> packages for the compiler a few month ago. The compiler is now getting
> stable, and the user base is growing, so I would be glad to see it enter
> Debian itself. So I have reviewed again the package creation process,
> reread the different policies (Debian and Java). It seems OK to me, so
> it would be great to get comments from experienced Debian developers.
>
> I made the package available at: http://nice.sourceforge.net/debian/
I am downloading it.
> I am looking for a sponsor for this package.
I am not a Debian developer (yet), so technically I cannot 'sponsor' you.
However, I will email you my experiences with the file you put online.
> A few notes:
>
> The package cannot yet be built entirely with free tools (it needs a JVM
> at build time to run the bootstrap compiler). It works with kaffe from
> CVS, but not 1.0.7, so I hope there will be a new release soon.
Have you file a wishlist bug against kaffe? Or even a bug, when it's a bug
that causes the problem.
> I also made bug reports to sablevm and gcj upstream.
Good.
> So either way, hopefully a
> free solution will be there soon. Before that, is it possible to
> build-depend on j2re1.3 | j2re1.4 ? I see that eclipse does that, and is
> in contrib. Though I wonder how the autobuilder can handle this, since
> the blackdown packages are not in in the Debian archives at all.
Good question for the FAQ.
> The compiler is partly written in itself, so it needs a working version
> to build it and bootstrap. I suppose the right way to handle this is to
> include the necessary jar in the source (I think the ocaml package also
> does that).
Mmm... interesting one.
> Being both the upstream author and the packager, the debian/ durectory
> is in the main CVS repository, and I produced a native Debian package,
> using cvs-buildpackage. Is that OK? (I read an old thread about this,
> which seemed positive).
AFAIK, this is not OK. Though I used to do it myself too. The correct way, I
believe is to make a tar.gz file, like the one which is online, and build the
Debian package from that. I think the reason is that it is now possible to
fully get a list of changes that were needed to make the Debian package.
Which is not possible when you do a cvs-buildpackage.
The latter is reserved (again AFAIK) for Debian only packages, when there
are *no* changes to record.
> There could still be packaging-only changes in the future, which would
> only increase the revision number (omitted for the main releases).
Ofcourse.
kind regards,
Egon
Reply to: