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 |