Hi On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Hi Ola, > > --- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well then we have to have an alternative approach to > > this. > > > > javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
This is the java.lang.* and such things that needs to exist for java to work (at all?). > > differences between versions there) > > javaX?-awt > > javaX?-swing > > > > Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes, > > java1-awt and java1-swing > > > > Is that a better proposal. I'll make that package if > > it is accepted. > > Only so far that Swing never officially was part of > JDK 1.1, but there was a swing implementation for JDK > 1.1 that could be downloaded as an extension. For Ohh well I ment that swing should be part of java2, or course. > extra fun, I assume it was slightly different from the > Swing shipped with Java 1.2.0, as it was labelled > swing-1.1.1 FCS. > > I think trying to formalize what features free VMs > support by breaking the feature set into smaller bits > and pieces is a sure way to end up having > javax-with-reflection-but-without-the-necessary-security-checks > and similar tags to label deficiences of particular > implementations instead of fixing them. I think that major new things (i.e. swing and awt) from java1 (from 1.0, or maybe only from 1.1 and above) should be broken down. > Blindly assuming that an application will work on one > free VM because it works on another is, at the current > state of things, also dangerous. Well if it does not work, it is a bug. > If I may make a proposal, as someone who's just a > lurker here, I'd say remove the 'provides > javax-runtime' tag from the free VM releases that > obviously lack the functionality of the tagged JDK > release, according to japitools. But only allow Java Yes, maybe. > programs to get into 'debain free' if they explicitely > name in their requirements a free VM as the default > choice and the maintainer has gone through the work of > testing it, and getting it to run with either kaffe, > gcj, sablevm, or some other free VM included in > 'debian-free'. It this criteria is not met that is a severe bug and the package should be removed from main and emmediatly put in contrib. > This approach provides two benefits: on one hand, the > free VMs get more testing and bug fixing work, then > they would otherwise. On the other hand, having a > debian maintainer state that his package works with a > free VM is a badge of honor for both the free VM and > the maintainer. Given that the VM developers usually This follows from the normal debian policy and so no extra things has to be written in the java policy. > can't test everything all the time, it would provide > additional insurance to the users that the free VMs > they got on their debian systems actually work for > something ;) > > The downsides are probably many. As I said, I am not a > debian developer, so I don't know if putting this > additional burden of work on the maintainers is a good > idea or not, if it's in line with other debian > policies, etc. It is already in line with the current policies so you are perfectly correct. :) Regards, // Ola > best regards, > dalibor topic > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 / --------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
