On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:12:52AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > [I think this is still topical to both debian-mentors and debian-java. > Someone tell me if they want it moved to one or the other...] > > > gcj is supposed to come with a working jni implementation and comes with > > gij (GNU Interpreter for Java) for interpreting bytecode. What exactly > > doesn't work with gcj? Could you please file a bug report? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html > > That way we at least know about the issue. > > > > Also Kaffe, Kissme and SableVM (all part of Debian now) should be able > > to run java byte code and jni code. > > Wow. I'm fairly impressed. It didn't take a lot of screwing around to > make this work. I had to go with gcj-3.2, and that forced me to go with > gcc-3.2 as well, and then I used fastjar to build the jarfiles. I > attempted to use gjdoc for Javadoc, with only limited success (more on > that later). Anyway, I'm glad you suggested that I look into this. :-) > > The gij java runtime would not work for my test case (just some simple > server/client pairs that come with the nbio distribution) but the kaffe > runtime did work. I haven't yet tried the SableVM runtime. > > The error I got from gij (below my signature) it a little out of my > league. I'm not exactly sure what bug I would file... perhaps you can > make a suggestion? I'd be happy to do some more digging if you think > it's worth it. > > I have several more questions now (I guess these are debian-mentors > questions): > > I'd like to distribute the Javadoc documentation with the package, but > gjdoc doesn't seem to be quite up to the task yet. I don't know of > another free Javadoc tool. I've thought that maybe I could pre-generate > the Javadoc documentation using the non-free tool, and include it > in the source distribution as part of the diff. This way, I won't > need to depend on a non-free tool to generate documentation that won't > change after I build the package, anyway. I'm not sure what stance > policy takes on things like this. Good idea? Bad idea?
Well, i would separate the docs into their own package (nbio-doc) and have them built and put into contrib (if you have right to modify them, non-free if not). I don't really know, but i guess that if nbio builds with free tool, it could even go into main, and it would be a shame to hold that back just for the docs. > Since I now need gcc-3.2 to make this work, I believe it's proper to > list gcc-3.2 as a Build-Depends, at least until it's the default and is > available on all architectures. Is this correct? > > In the original version of my package, I just listed a Depends on > java-common. Is this still appropriate, even though I know that not > every package that provides java-common will work with my package? You should list the working package first : working-java | java-common This way, the autobuilders will pick the first option first. > Thanks, all of you, for the help. Sorry if I'm rambling. It's 3:00am > and I should stop hacking and go to bed. :-) good night then, but i think nights are the best hack times. Friendly, Sven Luther
