Hi On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, it's me yet again on this JNI issue. > > > My suggestion is that you start filing wishlist bugs against the jvm:s > > and talk to blackdown folk (hi there! ;) ) or similar. > > Well, I filed these wishlist bugs, complete with wrapper scripts that would > implement this JNI directory change, about three months ago. Bugs were filed > against gij-3.2, kaffe, sablevm, jdk1.1 and ibm-jdk1.1-installer, and an > email was also sent to the j2se1.4 maintainer (since this package does not > use the debian BTS). > > In the intervening three months, absolutely nothing has been done for *any* > of > these virtual machines, with the single exception of gij-3.2 (which, > incidentally, was the only virtual machine I know of that couldn't use the > patch I sent three months ago since it didn't support -Djava.library.path, > but which had a new upload within days of me providing a patch that > circumvented the -Djava.library.path problem).
Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all? > A week or so ago I submitted source-level patches to the other JVMs in main > (kaffe and sablevm), i.e., patches which augment the JNI search path in the > JVM itself instead of relying on a clever wrapper script. I haven't done > this with the JVMs in non-free for the obvious reasons, but there are still > the wrapper scripts I provided. I'd like a source patch for java-common if you can provide such a beast. Otherwise I'll try to make it myself. It is a lot easier to discuss if you have the actual wordings. :) > > When it has been implemented on some important jvm:s (like kaffe, > > jdk1.1 and possibly j2re) I'll update the Debian policy. > > It becomes increasingly apparent to me that if we wait for this JNI path > change to take place on "enough" JVMs, that this policy change will never > happen. You might be right here. > People seem to agree that this policy change is a good thing and patches have > been available for months. Can we just change policy now, upgrade these bugs > from wishlist to something more important, and then let the JVMs catch up? Might be a good solution. What do other people think about this? Regards, // Ola > Ben. :) > > - -- > > Ben Burton > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When I started watching my behavior and seeing how I would control > people, and how they would control me, it was awareness. I want awareness > more than anything, and part of awareness is being able to honor the part > of you that's Lady Macbeth. > - Tori Amos > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+Q2XqMQNuxza4YcERAvwVAKCWJjEAdGj5LlFzH7U3pb89f3Dd7QCgh9QE > oF7w4WBLwi6ntNaaUR4Z+hI= > =QTH7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > 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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
