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
1 Greg Tassone wrote:
2 > On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 16:34 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
3 >
4 >>At the moment we have old versions of at least
5 >>dev-java/{kaffe,jamvm,sablevm} marked stable. The open source java stack
6 >>is starting to be usable but these old versions certainly are not drop
7 >>in replacements for the proprietary ones. This in mind I propose that we
8 >>move everything to ~arch and re-evaluate them going stable when the time
9 >>is right. To give everyone time for objections I plan on moving the
10 >>versions to ~arch in January.
11 >
12 >
13 > I think the above statements need some clarification. Are you saying
14 > that you want to take the currently-marked-as-stable versions of these
15 > packages in Portage and change them to ~arch? If so, that is probably a
16 > bad idea for several reasons, chief of which is the many
17 > questions/complaints we will all receive when world updates are trying
18 > to downgrade packages, or worse, when the new Portage starts complaining
19 > about a broken state of the world file due to "No packages being
20 > available for [whatever]".
21
22 Yes, you got it right. I want to change KEYWORDS from ~x86 to x86.
23
24 >
25 > Instead I would suggest leaving the existing flags as-is, and bump revs
26 > on (new) ebuilds (or newer versions if they exist) and just flag those
27 > as appropriate.
28
29 Well seeing that I haven't gotten anyone agreeing with me, that is what
30 I should do.
31
32 >
33 > I think most/all folks using those packages are aware of their limited
34 > compatibility with the proprietary VM's. Therefore, the risk of leaving
35 > the current versions "stable" is probably minimal.
36
37 This is probably mostly true, but let's see what eix jamvm says:
38
39 betelgeuse@pena /usr/share/doc $ eix jamvm
40 * dev-java/jamvm
41 Available versions: 1.3.0 1.3.1 1.3.3 1.4.1
42 Installed: none
43 Homepage: http://jamvm.sourceforge.net/
44 Description: An extremely small and specification-compliant
45 virtual machine.
46
47 jamvm is of course spefication-compliant so this is true, but
48 gnu-classpath is far from being compatible with the Sun class library
49 (1.4).
50
51 >
52 > As a worst-case, if you're really concerned about users misconstruing
53 > the supposed "stable" status of these packages, you could always add
54 > some einfo/ewarn style messages to explain it on those versions.
55 >
56
57 Here lies the reason of me not liking them being stable. Stable packages
58 just shouldn't have these einfo or ewarn messages.
59
60 Regards,
61 Petteri

Attachments

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