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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
