proposed debian policy for java

[Per Bothner]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@debian.org> writes:

> I know but, for the purpose of this policy, I do not see the difference
> [between cmpiling to class files or to native code] ? 

The proposed policy says:
> Java compilers MUST provide java-compiler and depends on java-common.
> They SHOULD use /etc/alternatives for the name 'javac'.

I don't think either of these policies are appropriate for a compiler
that produces native code only.  Furthermore, 'javac' should only be
used for a program that is "mostly compatible" with Sun's javac in the
sense that it handles command-line arguments similarly, for at least
the most common uses.  (Assuming I'm not misunderstanding how Debian
"alternatives" are meant to work.)

> > You should perhaps clarify that Java *implementations* should *not*
> > install classes directly under /usr/share/java/repository (or
> > /usr/share/java), because they might provide different (conflicting)
> > implementations of (say) java.lang.Class.
> 
> You mean base classes?

No, I mean the standard classes.  Loosely, anything in java.*.
Kaffe uses a different java.lang than Gcj does.

> I rather thought of /usr/share/kaffe/classes.jar since the base classes are 
> typically very VM-dependant.

That is another possibility.

(By the way:  You seem to be mis-using the term "base class".  A "base
class" is something that gets extended.  It does *not* mean a "core class".)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
bothner@pacbell.net  per@bothner.com   http://home.pacbell.net/bothner/