>>>>> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Ola> I think that major new things (i.e. swing and awt) from java1
Ola> (from 1.0, or maybe only from 1.1 and above) should be broken
Ola> down.
What doe you mean "new"? AWT has been part of Java from the dawn of
time.
>> 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.
Ola> Well if it does not work, it is a bug.
In the VM or the package? Obviously, I think it's the former.
>> 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
Ola> Yes, maybe.
Clearly I agree with this proposal or I wouldn't have filed these
bugs.
>> 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'.
This is where I stand right now with at least one package: I cannot
depend on java1-runtime because two of the three packages that provide
it *don't work*. By leaving the java1-runtime tag on the incomplete
VM packages, I'm required to maunally validate these packages
continuously or simply ignore their existence. IMHO, neither of those
alternatives is effective.
--
Stephen
"So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."... "And
therefore?"... "A witch!"
