On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 08:11, Nic Ferrier wrote: > Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi > > > > When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it > > is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state > > (i.e. not proposed anymore). > > > > It is available at: > > > > http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/ > > The actual policy is avalable at: > > http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html > > > > Some of it have to be rewritten so it states that it is no > > longer a proposed policy (when it is accepted). > > > > It anyone have comments on it please let me know. > > 2.5. Main, contrib or non-free > > <snip/> > > If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines > (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one > included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package itself is > free, it must go to contrib. > > There are many other free JVMs now: ORP, KissMe, etc... The Classpath > page at GNU references them: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg. unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe stating how it fails. I suppose that goes for the other JVMs too. Maybe that could be worked into the policy? Cheers, - Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
