Hi! <I am starting from scratch because our mails are getting too long>
I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy
and I really admire your work you do in that area.
In my initial mail I already proposed that "not meeting the criteria"
is just a bug, maybe even RC in some cases.
I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that aside of Kaffe,
the other free JVMs use indirectly (like gcj) or directly one single
source of it's classpath lisbrary - GNU Classpath. I really doubt if this
project has reached 80% of what java 1.2 (especially in the area of
graphical interfaces) should be. I think that *I* would use GNU
Classpath as the 100% here (then we can have JVMs that support more
than 100% ;-). But I don't really expect you to write it down to
the policy.
About SableVM - I can only say that currently SableVM is not able to use
all of the features of GNU Classpath. But OTOH I am sure it will get
better. It's being worked on.
But getting back to the topic.
You can treat my mail as an objection because it's still not really
clear what the proposed change in Java Policy would gain us.
It's still vague. It seem to need more detailed description or no
changes at all. I'd agree to discuss it... probably on d-java? - yes.
As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way:
1. Define exactly what requirements must be met for JVM to be able
to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine, java*-runtime etc.
2. Just file bugs on JVM when the program you want to run - doesn't
work. As usual. Nothing new. The bug will either get fixed or not.
The only question is whether it's RC (or a set of bugs can be
treated as RC) or not. That's sth. we *could* clarify.
One question that is bugging me all the time and I am really curious
what's the correct answer:
Do we actually have a problem?
Will having exact policy in this area gain us anything?
(Read: Do we rally want our free JVMs to be either kept out of testing
or kept w/o Provides: that can bring them to real live in many uses?)
Regards
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
PS: I'll wait to see what other have to say on that topic.
--
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
