FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Java

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:37 AM
Niels Thykier
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Hi

It turns out that we have still have jvmvm and cacao in Debian; the
question is, do we really want them?

For reference; cacao has not been in testing since 2006-12-15 (and thus
not in etch nor lenny). jamvm only provides java1-runtime[1].

On a related note: neither appeared to have any r(B-)D left, so it
should not be difficult to do the removal.


~Niels

[1] On a related note upstream says it "conforms to the JVM
specification version 2 (blue book)".
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:51 AM
Sylvestre Ledru
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Le jeudi 11 février 2010 à 11:37 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> Hi
>
> It turns out that we have still have jvmvm and cacao in Debian; the
> question is, do we really want them?
>
> For reference; cacao has not been in testing since 2006-12-15 (and thus
> not in etch nor lenny). jamvm only provides java1-runtime[1].
>
> On a related note: neither appeared to have any r(B-)D left, so it
> should not be difficult to do the removal.
>
I support this removal.
It add too much confusions to Java users & maintainers...

Sylvestre



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-11-2010, 10:19 AM
Vincent Fourmond
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 février 2010 à 11:37 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>> It turns out that we have still have jvmvm and cacao in Debian; the
>> question is, do we really want them?
>>
>> For reference; cacao has not been in testing since 2006-12-15 (and thus
>> not in etch nor lenny). jamvm only provides java1-runtime[1].
>>
>> On a related note: neither appeared to have any r(B-)D left, so it
>> should not be difficult to do the removal.
>>
> I support this removal.
> It add too much confusions to Java users & maintainers...

+1. We basically only need openjdk and gcj (and the cacao variant of
openjdk, which is performing much better on some platforms, it seems).

Cheers,

Vincent

PS: I don't have my key at work, but I could sign this mail if necessary


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-12-2010, 06:29 PM
Niels Thykier
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> [...]
> +1. We basically only need openjdk and gcj (and the cacao variant of
> openjdk, which is performing much better on some platforms, it seems).
>
>

Hi

Just for clarification, by "the cacao variant of openjdk" did you mean
"icedtea-6-jre-cacao", which is a part of the openjdk-6 source package?

I will just give a couple of days for people to reply to this - assuming
no one objects, I will (probably) file the RMs on Monday or Tuesday.

~Niels
 
Old 02-12-2010, 07:30 PM
Damien Raude-Morvan
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Hi,

On 12/02/2010 20:29, Niels Thykier wrote:

Vincent Fourmond wrote:

[...]
+1. We basically only need openjdk and gcj (and the cacao variant of
openjdk, which is performing much better on some platforms, it seems).


Just for clarification, by "the cacao variant of openjdk" did you mean
"icedtea-6-jre-cacao", which is a part of the openjdk-6 source package?


In fact, cacao variant of openjdk is built using "cacao-source" source
package which openjdk-6 Build-Depends on.



I will just give a couple of days for people to reply to this - assuming
no one objects, I will (probably) file the RMs on Monday or Tuesday.


So on "cacao" case, I'm against dropping this package :
- "cacao" source package generate "cacao-source" which if a
Build-Depends of openjdk-6
- I think we might not drop openjdk-cacao-variant as it's the only
viable JVM alternative on some arch (alpha, mips, mipsel ?)


For "jamvm", I don't care since I hardly using it :/

Cheers,
--
Damien Raude-Morvan - http://damien.raude-morvan.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-15-2010, 06:55 PM
Matthias Klose
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

On 12.02.2010 21:30, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:

Hi,

On 12/02/2010 20:29, Niels Thykier wrote:

Vincent Fourmond wrote:

[...]
+1. We basically only need openjdk and gcj (and the cacao variant of
openjdk, which is performing much better on some platforms, it seems).


Just for clarification, by "the cacao variant of openjdk" did you mean
"icedtea-6-jre-cacao", which is a part of the openjdk-6 source package?


In fact, cacao variant of openjdk is built using "cacao-source" source
package which openjdk-6 Build-Depends on.


I will just give a couple of days for people to reply to this - assuming
no one objects, I will (probably) file the RMs on Monday or Tuesday.


So on "cacao" case, I'm against dropping this package :
- "cacao" source package generate "cacao-source" which if a
Build-Depends of openjdk-6
- I think we might not drop openjdk-cacao-variant as it's the only
viable JVM alternative on some arch (alpha, mips, mipsel ?)


the cacao source package and the cacao binary package should be dropped. the
cacao-source source package and the cacao-source binary package built from this
package should be kept.


if classpath should be kept, then it should build-depend on cacao-source, and
use the just built gjdoc to build its documentation.


Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4B79A6CC.8010005@ubuntu.com">http://lists.debian.org/4B79A6CC.8010005@ubuntu.com
 
Old 02-15-2010, 07:28 PM
Niels Thykier
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Hi

I have filed an RM on jamvm (#570009). I have not filed anything on
cacao yet.

Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> So on "cacao" case, I'm against dropping this package :
> - "cacao" source package generate "cacao-source" which if a
> Build-Depends of openjdk-6

Actually, it seems like "cacao-source" now builds "cacao-source" (since
Auguest 2009 or so); so cacao itself should not affect openjdk anymore.
Do you still want to keep cacao then?

~Niels
 
Old 02-15-2010, 09:10 PM
Damien Raude-Morvan
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

On 15/02/2010 21:28, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have filed an RM on jamvm (#570009). I have not filed anything on
> cacao yet.
>
> Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
>> So on "cacao" case, I'm against dropping this package :
>> - "cacao" source package generate "cacao-source" which if a
>> Build-Depends of openjdk-6
>
> Actually, it seems like "cacao-source" now builds "cacao-source" (since
> Auguest 2009 or so); so cacao itself should not affect openjdk anymore.
> Do you still want to keep cacao then?


Thanks Niels and Matthias for spoting my mistake on this.
If "cacao-source" binary package is provided by another source package,
you cancel my previous mail.

Cheers,
--
Damien Raude-Morvan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 398406415a5c4069350aabfd69073183@drazzib.com">http ://lists.debian.org/398406415a5c4069350aabfd69073183@drazzib.com
 
Old 02-18-2010, 06:15 AM
Niels Thykier
 
Default Considering RM of jamvm and cacao

Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> On 15/02/2010 21:28, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have filed an RM on jamvm (#570009). I have not filed anything on
>> cacao yet.
>>
>> Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
>>> So on "cacao" case, I'm against dropping this package :
>>> - "cacao" source package generate "cacao-source" which if a
>>> Build-Depends of openjdk-6
>> Actually, it seems like "cacao-source" now builds "cacao-source" (since
>> Auguest 2009 or so); so cacao itself should not affect openjdk anymore.
>> Do you still want to keep cacao then?
>
>
> Thanks Niels and Matthias for spoting my mistake on this.
> If "cacao-source" binary package is provided by another source package,
> you cancel my previous mail.
>
> Cheers,

Alright, then I will put cacao back on the list of things to get RM'ed.
I will file the RM Sunday or Monday; please voice objections (if any)
before then.

~Niels
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org