Re: Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
Hello
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:03:56PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
*SNIP*
> > >
> > > 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.
I understood that.
> > "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.
Well these are not random changes. As you might have noted I'm the one
that is responsible for the writing of this policy. That is why I can tell
that it is a bit vauge. The reason is that what you missed is what I
intended to write (but failed to clarify) in the current policy.
But right now the policy has been somewhat accepted as a normal Debian
policy I have to make proposals as everybody else. If there becomes a
consensus about that this is a good thing, I'll update the policy as
normal.
Should I see your mail here as an objection, or do you have a second alternative?
> 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
If so, We'll have to define it.
> you say that I should just conform to some Sun Java standard - _any_
> of free JVMs (and especially their classlib) actually does it right.
If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> 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.
Yes, I know that free JVMs are not perfect too. Actually sun/ibm etc ones is not
perfect either. They are sometimes buggy, incomplete, etc. I do not say that you
should not provide java1-runtime. What I say is that the package should not
provide things if it can not satisfy the requirements, at least in the (near?)
future.
If sablewm is, say 99% (or less I do not really know) complete then this is ok.
But if it is just, say 80% complete... then no. I'm not able to tell exact
requirements right now and therefore I want to discuss this politely on this list.
> > > 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 sure know that.
> 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_? :-/
The policy is here to define good common practice. I think that
if someone tells that they provide things, without actually doing it,
that can be seen as a bug.
> Let's give it up.
I intend to have a clear and precise policy. It is not really clear
in all aspects right now which you pointed out (even if not intentional).
That is why I want to make this proposal.
Best regards,
// Ola
> 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/
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: