Bug#228673: sablevm-test-suite_0.1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 16:45, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that since this package is really not needed by anyone not developing
> the sablevm itself, it doesn't really belong in Debian. If this suite is a
> useful tool, then get the sable guys to include it as a build-time test suite.
>
> Of course, if I've missed something obvious which makes this a must-have
> package for Debian then please let me know and feel free to re-upload it.
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 02:53, Adam Majer wrote:
> Why not just add these to the sablevm source?
>
> I think that it would be enough to update the test suite no
> more than you update the SableVM.
Hi,
I also though about it before uploading, but I think it was the cleanest way
to do it, mainly because:
- if I wanted the test suite to be in SableVM package then it has to be compiled
during the build (and for each build separately) as I cannot include binary .classes,
- compilation requires not only javac (on which SableVM currently doesn't build-depend,
but let's say it wouldn't be that big problem), but also jasmin-sable (it's jasmin
java assembler maintained by sable group, as the original author is not interested
in it anymore)
- jasmin is packaged as a .deb and is written in java, so it Depends: on a JVM.
So it would mean that to compile SableVM JVM package - I would already need to have
a running JVM, which is kinda sick. Or I would need to include jasmin source into
SableVM source and compile jasmin (which compilation btw. also requires working JVM),
which I percieve as an insane idea.
And after all - there's nothing in this package that makes it very SableVM
specific. Yes, it has been created w/ SableVM in mind, it is able to *also* test
some SableVM-specific quirks, but it's just like many manual pages, which have been
written by Debian Developers, for Debian, "but may be used by others".
Probably I should have included this explanation before uploading the package
(but where?). In any case the decision to create new package wasn't dictated by
"let's just cut it into pieces" (the original, first-thought was to make it part
of SableVM tarball) but rather by technical (and yes, also the taste-driven
like: cleanness, saneness) reasons, mentioned above.
Therefore I wanted to ask for reevaluation of this rejection.
Sincerely,
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
Reply to: