Hallo Jan, --- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo Dalibor, > > * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> I wanted to say, that you have a interface for the 'unfree' ones and > this interface will work, even if you have 'not working' JVM > installed. The current interface (/usr/bin/java) does not garantee, > that your package is working. I don't think that an 'interface' can guarantee that a package is working with a specific VM environment. Only testing by the üackagers and users can guarantee that. > >I'm sorry, but I don't see how that will help free java in debian. It > >may get more bug reports submitted to kaffe & co, and make releases > >take longer because all of that has to be sifted through, bit it won't > >really help. > > What do you expect? This policy is about packaging java apps/libs/jvm in > debian. It can include some items to make porting the app to a free VM > easier (which could be done by simple adding a alternative for the > required 'unfree interface' and then start testing), but this si IMO > not the primary goal. >From debian I'd expect a policy that helps and guides java apps/libs/jvm maintainers to build and package their stuff with a focus on free VMs, gives pointers who to get in topuch with if things don't work, has a section on free java developers working on providing a free java infrastructure and how to contribute to it, and provides the necessary bits of information on how to deal with the legacy, proprietary VMs. Certainly not the other way round ;) > So what interface do you propose? I think that adding something to the > ant-build-compiler interface or even making it > ant-build-compiler-version would solve most of this. I haven't thought about an ant build interface yet. I think it should mostly concern itself with setting a few ant properties, like 'build.compiler' to try to ensure that ant works with a particular VM environment, instead of relying on sun-centric defaults provided by ant. > >I think that codifying a status quo is such a good idea. It makes the policy > >obsolete quite quickly. I'd prefer a policy that tells maintainers to > >explicitely tells maintainers to test their packages with free VMs and mark > >those that work. > > And what's the difference with my proposal? The only thing is, that > policy can't tell mainatiner something, just how you package has to be. Sorry, then I must have misunderstood. I thought your policy proposal defined some 'java-xy compatible interfaces' that java packages should use, where the interfaces are losely defined to match Sun's, in hope that this would make an application work on all three non-free VMs and maybe even on free ones, should they ever achieve some undefined form of java-xy compatibiliy. Instead, my proposal is to drop the notion of compatibility, and have the maintainer put down what VM environments work, and depend on any one of them being installed. > The current 'policy interface' (/usr/bin/java, etc) is just to less to > work. But IMO, we can't simple start a policy, which requires every > small thing or this policy will be longer than the complete debian > policy... Uh, I'm not saying that the current debian java policy is all that great. I applaud your effort so far, to get debian java developers to re-think debian support for java and to revise the policy. It has been a very educational experience for me ;) cheers, dalibor topic __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
