Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-25 Thread Michael Koch
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:29:43AM -0500, Tom Marble wrote: > Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: > > Speaking of alternatives, it would be nice to have a mean to completely > > switch from one Java alternative to another. Currently you need to modify > > more than 10 different alternatives in order to sw

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-25 Thread Michael Koch
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:39:05PM +0200, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: > Hi, > > > Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: > >> Speaking of alternatives, it would be nice to have a mean to completely > >> switch from one Java alternative to another. Currently you need to > >> modify > >> more than 10 differe

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-25 Thread Eric Lavarde - Debian
Hi, > Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: >> Speaking of alternatives, it would be nice to have a mean to completely >> switch from one Java alternative to another. Currently you need to >> modify >> more than 10 different alternatives in order to switch from e.g. kaffe >> to >> Sun's Java or back. >> I

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-25 Thread Michael Koch
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:14:17PM -0400, Charles Fry wrote: > > > You are proposing two distinct alternatives: > > > > > >- number of non-library packages depending on the VM > > >- if you install a certain VM, how many applications will you be able > > > to run with it > > > > > > Th

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-24 Thread Tom Marble
Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: > Speaking of alternatives, it would be nice to have a mean to completely > switch from one Java alternative to another. Currently you need to modify > more than 10 different alternatives in order to switch from e.g. kaffe to > Sun's Java or back. > I don't know how thi

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-24 Thread Sanghyeon Seo
2006/5/24, Eric Lavarde - Debian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Speaking of alternatives, it would be nice to have a mean to completely switch from one Java alternative to another. Currently you need to modify more than 10 different alternatives in order to switch from e.g. kaffe to Sun's Java or back.

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Dalibor Topic
Michael Koch gmx.de> writes: > We decided at FOSDEM to make GCJ then default. The rest is ok with me. Fine for me, too. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Charles Fry
> > You are proposing two distinct alternatives: > > > >- number of non-library packages depending on the VM > >- if you install a certain VM, how many applications will you be able > > to run with it > > > > The first is easier to measure, while the second would potentially be > > mor

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Eric Lavarde - Debian
Hi, >> Before popcon (number of downloads), I would suggest number of >> non-library >> packages depending on the VM, i.e. if you install a certain VM, how many >> applications will you be able to run with it, without having to install >> another VM and play with JAVA_HOME etc... > > You are propo

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Charles Fry
> >> I'd suggest a popcon based ordering. Reevaluate for every > >> release / 6 months, etc. which should let us shuffle things > >> around as necessary. > > > > We can also reevaluate just before the release. > Before popcon (number of downloads), I would suggest number of non-library > packages d

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Eric Lavarde - Debian
Hi, > >>>- ordering of the free runtimes. can we agree on some kind of order? >> >> I'd suggest a popcon based ordering. Reevaluate for every >> release / 6 months, etc. which should let us shuffle things >> around as necessary. > > We can also reevaluate just before the release. Before popcon (nu

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Michael Koch
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:29:34PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dalibor Topic a écrit : > > Matthias Klose cs.tu-berlin.de> writes: > > > >>now that non-free java jre's and jdk's are available in non-free, we > > Yeah! Thanks for the work!..

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-23 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dalibor Topic a écrit : > Matthias Klose cs.tu-berlin.de> writes: > >>now that non-free java jre's and jdk's are available in non-free, we Yeah! Thanks for the work!.. >>should get some agreement about the priorities for the different tools >>and e

Re: priorities for java alternatives

2006-05-22 Thread Dalibor Topic
Matthias Klose cs.tu-berlin.de> writes: > > now that non-free java jre's and jdk's are available in non-free, we > should get some agreement about the priorities for the different tools > and environments. some proposals: > > - things in main have higher priorities than things in contrib > an