Re: priorities for java alternatives
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:14:17PM -0400, Charles Fry wrote:
> > > 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.
When a package doesnt work with a specific jvm (or jvm group) it should
just be filed as a bug. Either for the package or the jvm. Whereever the
bug belongs. On the long run me should try to make it possible to run
every application with every runtime. I know its a high goal.
Cheers,
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: