Charles Fry <debian <at> frogcircus.org> writes: > > Does this mean that bugs should be filed with packages which provide or > depend on java-runtime (I noticed a few)? > > Should bugs be filed with kaffe, which as Peter pointed out does not > provide any java runtime? > > Is there any reason why java1-runtime and java2-runtime are the official > runtimes, whereas java-compiler and java2-compiler are the official > compilers? This inconsistency does not seem helpful in establishing > consistency within the runtimes.
Yeah, I think the policy should be consolidated, since java 1.1 is (for all I know) not packaged or availiable in Debian. Java-package supports nonfree runtimes starting from 1.3 and above. I assume that most of the software packaged in Debian these days will require a pretty modern runtime anyway. So, I'd suggest that the java(X)-runtime virtuals are removed in favour of a general "j-word-runtime" virtual to be provided by all runtimes capable of running programms written in the Java programming language. I propose using "j-word" instead of "java", because that is a time-honoured way of abbreviating four letter words that can not be said freely in English.[1] cheers, dalibor topic [1] As Sun Microsystems holds and and actively defends their Java(TM) trade mark, I would not recommend calling Kaffe a Java(TM) runtime, because, frankly, according to Sun Microsystem's rules for the usage of the trade mark, it is not a Java(TM) runtime. And that's fine by me, I don't feel that trying to rub off Sun's trade mark investment is a fair thing to do.[2] You can see on the kaffe.org web site how the Kaffe project tries to draw a clear line between Kaffe and Sun Microsystem's implementation. In order to avoid confusing people who dearly want the "Java(TM) Desktop System" GNU/Linux distribution, for example, rather than a free software runtime environment for programms written in the Java programming language (that is a safe use of the term "Java", btw. ;). [2] Just like I don't feel that Sun Microsystems attempts to market some of their clearly proprietary software as Open Source are a fine thing to do, like they tried to do with Java3D or JAI. See my comment at http://weblogs.java.net/blog/editors/archives/2005/02/working_with_th.html for a reference. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
