W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze: > Hi > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > > retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for > > java1-runtime > > thanks > > > > W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze: > > > Package: sablevm > > > Version: 1.0.5-1 > > > Severity: important > > > > > > According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must > > > support the the complete java runtime environment. As sablevm fails > > > to provide working java.awt.* classes, the provides on this package is > > > incorrect. Please remove it until such time as sablevm has working > > > support for java.awt.*. > > > > I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common > > package) and couldn't find such explict statment. I meant statment that says that it MUST provide such and such features to be allowed to provide java-virtual-machine. > "Java virtual machines must provide java-virtual-machine and depend on java-common. > They can also provide the runtime environment that the package contains > (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime). If it does not provide the files itself it > must depend on the needed runtime environment." > > So the policy is a bit vauge. I suggest that we change it to the following: > > "Java virtual machines must provide java-virtual-machine and depend on java-common. > They may also provide a runtime environment (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) > if it contains the complete set of runtime files. If it does not provide the files > itself it must depend on the needed runtime environment." I personally wouldn't do random changes here and there in the policy. I don't know what is "complete set of runtime files". You either gonna explain this further or you'd better give it up. And I doubt that if you say that I should just conform to some Sun Java standard - _any_ of free JVMs (and especially their classlib) actually does it right. Personally I find Java Policy good enough and I don't see any benefit from such changes. _Everybody_ know that free JVMs are not perfect. > > The Java Policy is to help us, to support us and to guide us. > > Agreed. But in some cases it is good that it forbid some things. In this > case it is probably ok to keep the provide line, but only if you can see > fixes to the bugs in the (near?) future. If not you should drop it and > wait until it is (at least about to) be fixed. I'd just say that SableVM is actively maintained and the things will be fixed one by one. But - as it is the rule for almost every free software - it will take time. I don't think that putting more LAW into the mix will gain us anything. If your app doesn't work with some JVM - file a bug and either help fixing it or wait for a fix or switch to another JVM if there's any legaly working alternative. > > The Java Policy is for us, not the other way. > Agreed too. It is for us, not a specific person. You mean it's not for _me_? :-/ Let's give it up. In Poland we have a say like that: "A cup of tee doesn't get sweeter by stiring [mixing]" (which means that you can't do much w/o sugar) Best regards Grzegorz B. Prokopski -- Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> Debian http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature