Followups set to debian-java where this is a little more on topic.
> "Ian" == Ian Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> gcj can compile java bytecode into native code. So
Ian> Architecture: all java libraries can be used for development
Ian> purposes without an interpreter.
Stephen Zander wrote:
So classpath & libgjc *together* provide java1-runtime?
Not really. The two projects are separate, but they are both GNU
projects, and share a lot of code. However, libgcj does not "use"
or "depend" on classpath as a separate package. They have separate
CVS repositories and
Stephen Zander wrote:
>"Per" == Per Bothner writes:
Per> libgcj has had "core classes and JVM" (including ClassLoaders
Per> and JNI) for years.
The why doesn't the package 'Provide: java1-runtime'?
Possibly a different concept of "core classes" (GCJ does not yet
have a working AWT); po
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment"
Stefan> (i.e. core classes and JVM) in this case. And obviously
Stefan> the maintainers of classpath and libgcj* used the same
Stefan> definitions, otherwise thei
> "Per" == Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Per> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>> I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment"
>> (i.e. core classes and JVM) in this case. And obviously the
>> maintainers of classpath and libgcj* used the same definitions,
>> otherwise
Followups set to debian-java where this is a little more on topic.
> "Ian" == Ian Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> gcj can compile java bytecode into native code. So
Ian> Architecture: all java libraries can be used for development
Ian> purposes without an interpreter.
Stefan Gybas wrote:
I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment" (i.e. core classes
and JVM) in this case. And obviously the maintainers of classpath and
libgcj* used the same definitions, otherwise their packages would
provide at least java1-runtime.
libgcj has had "core classes and JVM"
Stephen Zander wrote:
I disagree. Consider the analogy of non-Java libraries. They *all*
depend on a runtime environment (libc6), regaless of the fact that the
binaries that invoke them also depend on the same runtime environment
(libc6 again).
I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment
Stephen Zander wrote:
You're suggesting that jikes can use the .class files in these
packages to produce other .class packages without a runtime
environment?
It depends on the definition of "runtime environment". If you mean
"runtime environment" are just the core classes the of course the answer
Stephen Zander wrote:
So classpath & libgjc *together* provide java1-runtime?
Not really. The two projects are separate, but they are both GNU
projects, and share a lot of code. However, libgcj does not "use"
or "depend" on classpath as a separate package. They have separate
CVS repositories
Stephen Zander wrote:
>"Per" == Per Bothner writes:
Per> libgcj has had "core classes and JVM" (including ClassLoaders
Per> and JNI) for years.
The why doesn't the package 'Provide: java1-runtime'?
Possibly a different concept of "core classes" (GCJ does not yet
have a working AW
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment"
Stefan> (i.e. core classes and JVM) in this case. And obviously
Stefan> the maintainers of classpath and libgcj* used the same
Stefan> definitions, otherwise thei
> "Per" == Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Per> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>> I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment"
>> (i.e. core classes and JVM) in this case. And obviously the
>> maintainers of classpath and libgcj* used the same definitions,
>> otherwise
Stefan Gybas wrote:
I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environment" (i.e. core classes
and JVM) in this case. And obviously the maintainers of classpath and
libgcj* used the same definitions, otherwise their packages would
provide at least java1-runtime.
libgcj has had "core classes and J
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, here's my (hopefully) final question. I think I have
>> addressed everyone's concerns with this Depends line:
>>
>> Depends: kaffe | java-virtual-machine, kaffe | java-runtime,
>> java-common
Ola> If you chan
Stephen Zander wrote:
I disagree. Consider the analogy of non-Java libraries. They *all*
depend on a runtime environment (libc6), regaless of the fact that the
binaries that invoke them also depend on the same runtime environment
(libc6 again).
I have used Sun's definition of "runtime environ
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> IMHO Java libraries should not have any dependencies on
Stefan> either a runtime or a virtual machine. The reason is
Stefan> simple: Let's say I have a Java library package in main
Stefan> (so it can be built with ji
Stephen Zander wrote:
You're suggesting that jikes can use the .class files in these
packages to produce other .class packages without a runtime
environment?
It depends on the definition of "runtime environment". If you mean
"runtime environment" are just the core classes the of course the ans
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> Libraries don't have to depend on java-virtual-machine
Stefan> since they are not run by end-users. For example, they can
Stefan> be used by Jikes to compile Java classes without an
Stefan> installed JVM (if the Debi
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, here's my (hopefully) final question. I think I have
>> addressed everyone's concerns with this Depends line:
>>
>> Depends: kaffe | java-virtual-machine, kaffe | java-runtime,
>> java-common
Ola> If you chan
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> IMHO Java libraries should not have any dependencies on
Stefan> either a runtime or a virtual machine. The reason is
Stefan> simple: Let's say I have a Java library package in main
Stefan> (so it can be built with ji
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> Libraries don't have to depend on java-virtual-machine
Stefan> since they are not run by end-users. For example, they can
Stefan> be used by Jikes to compile Java classes without an
Stefan> installed JVM (if the Debi
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> I do not know that short form WTF. If they are installable
Ola> does not matter. If it is completely useless then it has to
Ola> depend on somekind of runtime at least. Just as with any
Ola> other dependencies. :)
WTF ->
> From policy:
> "Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment (java1-runtime
> and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only suggest)
> java-virtual-machine."
Right. I will use this:
Depends: kaffe | java1-runtime, java-common
Suggests: java-virtual-machine
I think
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> I do not know that short form WTF. If they are installable
Ola> does not matter. If it is completely useless then it has to
Ola> depend on somekind of runtime at least. Just as with any
Ola> other dependencies. :)
WTF ->
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Sure, but since neither classpath nor libgcj* provide the virtual
runtime package
Why doesn't libgcj provide the virtual runtime package?
It seems like it should.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/per/
> From policy:
> "Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment (java1-runtime and/or
>java2-runtime) but should not depend (only suggest) java-virtual-machine."
Right. I will use this:
Depends: kaffe | java1-runtime, java-common
Suggests: java-virtual-machine
I think tha
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
A runtime is just the core classes. That is my definition anyway.
Ok, could you add this clarification to the Java policy and the virtual
package list?
Don't you need the core classes (runtime env) to build the native package?
Sure, but since neither classpath nor libgcj* pro
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > "Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment
> > (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only
> > suggest) java-virtual-machine."
>
> Does a "runtime" include a virtua
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
"Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only suggest) java-virtual-machine."
Does a "runtime" include a virtual machine or just the core classes? The
list of virtual packages does not state this
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Sure, but since neither classpath nor libgcj* provide the virtual
runtime package
Why doesn't libgcj provide the virtual runtime package?
It seems like it should.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/per/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi
Correcttion to myself. Sorry.
*SNIP*
> If you change java-runtime to java1-runtime it is perfectly correct.
>
> > Can everyone agree that this is correct? If not, can someone suggest a
> > line that will satisfy everyone?
>
> But you do not need to depend on any of the above except java-com
Hi
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:16:21AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Ok... I've gotten a lot of answers on this thread, which I REALLY
> appreciate. This is what I love about Debian. :-) I just want to take
> one last pass at my question, to make sure everyone's in agreement.
>
> Parts of th
Hi
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:46:15AM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> >Also, WTF is with all the "Architecture: all' -java packages that only
> >depend on java-common? While I guess they're installable without a
> >java runtime on this system, they're a completely unusable
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
A runtime is just the core classes. That is my definition anyway.
Ok, could you add this clarification to the Java policy and the virtual
package list?
Don't you need the core classes (runtime env) to build the native package?
Sure, but since neither classpath nor libgc
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > "Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment
> > (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only
> > suggest) java-virtual-machine."
>
> Does a "runtime" include a virtua
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
"Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only suggest) java-virtual-machine."
Does a "runtime" include a virtual machine or just the core classes? The
list of virtual packages does not state
Stephen Zander wrote:
Also, WTF is with all the "Architecture: all' -java packages that only
depend on java-common? While I guess they're installable without a
java runtime on this system, they're a completely unusable in that
sate.
The changelog for java-common 0.15 says:
* Java libraries shoul
Hi
Correcttion to myself. Sorry.
*SNIP*
> If you change java-runtime to java1-runtime it is perfectly correct.
>
> > Can everyone agree that this is correct? If not, can someone suggest a
> > line that will satisfy everyone?
>
> But you do not need to depend on any of the above except java-com
Hi
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:16:21AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Ok... I've gotten a lot of answers on this thread, which I REALLY
> appreciate. This is what I love about Debian. :-) I just want to take
> one last pass at my question, to make sure everyone's in agreement.
>
> Parts of th
Hi
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:46:15AM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> >Also, WTF is with all the "Architecture: all' -java packages that only
> >depend on java-common? While I guess they're installable without a
> >java runtime on this system, they're a completely unusable
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:42:31PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> This looks good if you only need a virtual machine and it
> Ola> works with kaffe. But you most probably need a java1-runtime
> Ola> to run it (not jus kaffe
Stephen Zander wrote:
Also, WTF is with all the "Architecture: all' -java packages that only
depend on java-common? While I guess they're installable without a
java runtime on this system, they're a completely unusable in that
sate.
The changelog for java-common 0.15 says:
* Java libraries
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:42:31PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> This looks good if you only need a virtual machine and it
> Ola> works with kaffe. But you most probably need a java1-runtime
> Ola> to run it (not jus kaffe
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:16:21AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> So, here's my (hopefully) final question. I think I have addressed
> everyone's concerns with this Depends line:
>
>Depends: kaffe | java-virtual-machine, kaffe | java-runtime, java-common
>
> Can everyone agree that this i
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> This looks good if you only need a virtual machine and it
Ola> works with kaffe. But you most probably need a java1-runtime
Ola> to run it (not jus kaffe) so you should add that too (if you
Ola> need the runtime classes).
46 matches
Mail list logo
