Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] prometheus done -- plus, should we sequester/reject java spells?
  • Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 01:58:29 +0200

Good idea, I'm all for a java grimoire.
just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Mathieu.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:16:50PM -0700, 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.
>
> Seth
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page