[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: priorities for java alternatives



> > You are proposing two distinct alternatives:
> >
> >    - number of non-library packages depending on the VM
> >    - if you install a certain VM, how many applications will you be able
> >      to run with it
> >
> > The first is easier to measure, while the second would potentially be
> > more useful.
> Errh, agree, but the idea was that it's somewhat correlated (or am I
> missing something!?), and if:
> 1. you trust the non-library package maintainers :-)
> 2. modify the 2nd alternative with "being *sure* to be able to run"
> then it's pretty much the same.
> 
> In other words: if the package has a dependency on a specific VM, that
> should mean that the maintainer has tested the application with the VM.
> Cogito ergo sum.

You are right that popcon would give us a subset of the VMs on which a
package works, but I would expect the actual number to be far larger.
For example, most packages are probably guilt with gcj or kaffe, but
probably work with many other JVMs as well.

That said, I don't have a sense of how common it is for a package not to
work with a certain JVM.

Charles

-- 
Film protects
Your neck
And chin
So your razor
Won't dig in
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1931/film_protects

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: