sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: seth AT swoolley.homeip.net
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:47:01 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
seth AT swoolley.homeip.net wrote:
> I've done a first round through the grimoire and a lot of spells were
> skipped due to brokenness, so I expect a re-run will find even more
> issues. Through the weekend I will triage the rest of the bugs filed,
> but I have one question to ask of everybody:
>
> Should the spells that depend on z-rejected spells be moved until they
> can have that restriction lifted?
>
> There are spells that depend on a z-rejected spell that aren't rejected
> because they could conceivably be run on code that wasn't rejected if we
> had a spell for it and got it to work with it. I'm talking mostly about
> anything we have that's java-based. I'm inclined just to say that java
> should be its own grimoire (sequestered) until we can get the spells to
> actually build/run in gcj or some other java compiler/runtime. Thus
> they're provisionally rejected, in a way since they can't be built with
> our system without a rejected spell.
While that sounds nice for organization I think it just makes more work
than is needed (a new grimoire, removing from devel -> stable, etc.).
The packages themselves are free, as you mention.
The only benefit I'd see from putting these 'questionable' packages in
another grimoire (which I'd say just put in z-rejected for now) is that
it might encourage people to try and get them to work with the free
alternatives (e.g. kaffe, gcj).
- -sandalle
- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFESsB1HXt9dKjv3WERAtXQAJ9caOyHzii8xXQEnvqvyAsm8wfqcQCeN8tX
fmfM4vI9Kv3GSiORyIxuLco=
=GRh9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
seth, 04/22/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
Eric Sandall, 04/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/23/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?, Mathieu L., 04/22/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?, Arwed von Merkatz, 04/23/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 04/24/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
seth, 04/25/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 04/25/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 04/25/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
seth, 04/26/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?, Arwed von Merkatz, 04/26/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 04/25/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
seth, 04/25/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?,
Eric Sandall, 04/22/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.