Re: priorities for java alternatives
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:29:34PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dalibor Topic a écrit :
> > Matthias Klose <doko <at> cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> >
> >>now that non-free java jre's and jdk's are available in non-free, we
>
> Yeah! Thanks for the work!..
>
> >>should get some agreement about the priorities for the different tools
> >>and environments. some proposals:
> >>
> >>- things in main have higher priorities than things in contrib
> >> and non-free.
> >
> > Sounds fine to me.
>
> OK.
>
> >>- an alternative installed as a "set" of alternatives has higher
> >> priority than a single tool.
> >
> > Do you have an example in mind where that would be useful?
>
> gcj, kaffe better priority than jamvm, cacao, sablevm?
We decided at FOSDEM to make GCJ then default. The rest is ok with me.
> >>- tools conforming to a higher "java version" have a higher priority
> >> (unsure if that is necessary).
> >
> > We have no way to figure out which java version tools conform to, so I don't
> > think that is possible.
>
> It can be useful for non-free jre/jdk, but not for the free vm's
>
> >>- ordering of the free runtimes. can we agree on some kind of order?
> >
> > I'd suggest a popcon based ordering. Reevaluate for every
> > release / 6 months, etc. which should let us shuffle things
> > around as necessary.
>
> We can also reevaluate just before the release.
Fine.
Michael
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
Reply to: