Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Cc: Greg Tassone <greg@×××××××.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Moving stable versions of alternative vms back to ~arch
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:43:54
Message-Id: 43B11AC7.4080400@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] Moving stable versions of alternative vms back to ~arch by Greg Tassone
Greg Tassone wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 16:34 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: > >>At the moment we have old versions of at least >>dev-java/{kaffe,jamvm,sablevm} marked stable. The open source java stack >>is starting to be usable but these old versions certainly are not drop >>in replacements for the proprietary ones. This in mind I propose that we >>move everything to ~arch and re-evaluate them going stable when the time >>is right. To give everyone time for objections I plan on moving the >>versions to ~arch in January. > > > I think the above statements need some clarification. Are you saying > that you want to take the currently-marked-as-stable versions of these > packages in Portage and change them to ~arch? If so, that is probably a > bad idea for several reasons, chief of which is the many > questions/complaints we will all receive when world updates are trying > to downgrade packages, or worse, when the new Portage starts complaining > about a broken state of the world file due to "No packages being > available for [whatever]".
Yes, you got it right. I want to change KEYWORDS from ~x86 to x86.
> > Instead I would suggest leaving the existing flags as-is, and bump revs > on (new) ebuilds (or newer versions if they exist) and just flag those > as appropriate.
Well seeing that I haven't gotten anyone agreeing with me, that is what I should do.
> > I think most/all folks using those packages are aware of their limited > compatibility with the proprietary VM's. Therefore, the risk of leaving > the current versions "stable" is probably minimal.
This is probably mostly true, but let's see what eix jamvm says: betelgeuse@pena /usr/share/doc $ eix jamvm * dev-java/jamvm Available versions: 1.3.0 1.3.1 1.3.3 1.4.1 Installed: none Homepage: http://jamvm.sourceforge.net/ Description: An extremely small and specification-compliant virtual machine. jamvm is of course spefication-compliant so this is true, but gnu-classpath is far from being compatible with the Sun class library (1.4).
> > As a worst-case, if you're really concerned about users misconstruing > the supposed "stable" status of these packages, you could always add > some einfo/ewarn style messages to explain it on those versions. >
Here lies the reason of me not liking them being stable. Stable packages just shouldn't have these einfo or ewarn messages. Regards, Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature