Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk, and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 tag 365408 + wontfix thanks Hi Based the latest entries and the latest update to the policy, I am marking this as wontfix. That being said, I intend to propose the removal of the java*-compiler packages. ~Niels -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Topal (http://freshmeat.net/projects/topal) iEYEARECAAYFAku7ApoACgkQVCqoiq1Ylqxr+QCdG2YfTp4pi07ZxMW5EGvfZ/jh RCYAoKZCCdgMh15HSKCfXLXrW3mf96Wk =U7Ef -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:03:19PM -0400, Charles Fry wrote: A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! Java? is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. There are already many free packages that provide a binary (or symlink to a binary) named java. There is one package named 'free-java-sdk' which uses the name java, as well as the previously mentioned virtual packages which we already have. It seems reasonable to continue to use the word java in the virtual packages which provide binaries named java. The package name free-java-sdk is really a bad example as this package has really a bad history. The SableVM people just want to force users to use their VM. This package is not in line with the Debian Java maintainers. I still think that we need a distinction between classpath-derived and SUN-derived VMs. Perhaps later for Harmony-derived VMs too. All families have their issues. They ever will be. To work with this we need a clear naming for the virtual packages. The classpaht-* and java-* solution does this. The solultion you proposed does this only partially. Cheers, Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] MJ Ray a Âcrit : [...] A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! A package name does not call the language. Java is the name of an island. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray a écrit : [...] A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! Java? is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. - -- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg Formateur Cellule Programmation. Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEceY34vzFZu62tMIRAhIBAJ9V4KCUXK/T9tnbamzmT/kK496V+QCeLoOg G3m4rBxbMokjUR46sYFVu6Y= =4NHo -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Arnaud Vandyck n:Vandyck;Arnaud org;quoted-printable:Universit=C3=A9 de Li=C3=A8ge;STE-Formations Informatiques adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:B=C3=A2timent C1;;Rue Armand St=C3=A9vard, 2;Li=C3=A8ge;;4000;Belgique email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title;quoted-printable:Attach=C3=A9 (formateur) tel;work:+32 4 366 90 55 tel;fax:+32 4 366 90 59 tel;home:+32 4 349 09 69 tel;cell:+32 486 31 10 47 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.ste.fapse.ulg.ac.be/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! Java? is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. There are already many free packages that provide a binary (or symlink to a binary) named java. There is one package named 'free-java-sdk' which uses the name java, as well as the previously mentioned virtual packages which we already have. It seems reasonable to continue to use the word java in the virtual packages which provide binaries named java. Charles -- On a highway ad He spied it Bought a jar Now glad he Tried it Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1938/on_a_highway signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Cc'ing to debian-legal: summary: The major question is about replacing java1-runtime, java1-compiler, java2-runtime and java2-compiler virtual packages by classpath-jre, classpath-jdk for free java implementation and java-jre and java-jdk for non-free implementations. More informations on the bug report #365408. Thanks to Cc to the bug report. Charles Fry a écrit : [...] But I strongly disagree with using classpath-* for free versions, and saving java for non-free implementations. That encourages the use of the non-free implementations. No because java programs that work with free implementations will depend on classpath-jre. How about java-* for both free and non-free, and then if some package explicitely requires non-free they can depend on sun-java5-jre. I think we have to ask on debian-legal about this but I'm sure we cannot use the java word if it's not something that has been approved by Sun. Cheers, - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEbE0i4vzFZu62tMIRAnAvAJ9TtTttz+a46PRaC3yb8nPxGKAgTACfQdfq GMUyaRnDFDjt/or3Og+Dg6o= =vHE4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] The major question is about replacing java1-runtime, java1-compiler, java2-runtime and java2-compiler virtual packages by classpath-jre, classpath-jdk for free java implementation and java-jre and java-jdk for non-free implementations. More informations on the bug report #365408. Thanks to Cc to the bug report. The java* virtual package names should not direct people to non-free implementations when there are free implementations available. This is a project-y opinion rather than a legal-y one. Charles Fry a Âcrit : [...] But I strongly disagree with using classpath-* for free versions, and saving java for non-free implementations. That encourages the use of the non-free implementations. No because java programs that work with free implementations will depend on classpath-jre. I think enough users will ask for Java in particular to cause problems. How about java-* for both free and non-free, and then if some package explicitely requires non-free they can depend on sun-java5-jre. I think we have to ask on debian-legal about this but I'm sure we cannot use the java word if it's not something that has been approved by Sun. A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Fry a écrit : [...] 2) I don't see the trademark problem. There are already virtual packages that use the word java. What would be the difference between continuing the same trend? There is a trademark problem. The java1|2 virtual packages were targeted to Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown JVM version 1.1.x and 1.2. By extension, we have use the virtual packages with java1 for free runtimes and java2 for non-free runtimes. But I'm pretty sure there is a legal problem here. Maybe you have another proposal (I mean a legal one ;-)) As far as I can tell, the only real issue is #1 above. If that is the case then I propose: java-jre java-jdk This is not a problem if you refer to a Sun trademarked Java product (and affiliated vendors like IBM, Blackdown etc) java-jre-nonfree java-jdk-nonfree So you think Sun will be OK with that? I'm not sure. The first two would be used by all implementations, whether free of non-free. The last two would be reserved for non-free implementations. That's what we want but with classpath-* for free java and java-* for non-free implementations. Cheers, - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEa6z44vzFZu62tMIRAnQeAJ0dvEtTrYeblv2cuZVRuqMsR1hYSACfZYDH 6Rt2R2nEgboejyaG9xKdhMg= =XoOJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
2) I don't see the trademark problem. There are already virtual packages that use the word java. What would be the difference between continuing the same trend? There is a trademark problem. The java1|2 virtual packages were targeted to Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown JVM version 1.1.x and 1.2. By extension, we have use the virtual packages with java1 for free runtimes and java2 for non-free runtimes. But I'm pretty sure there is a legal problem here. The fact is that java1 has been used by free runtimes, so I don't see any reason why something with the word java would be any different now. If there is a legal problem, it should be specifically identified. Maybe you have another proposal (I mean a legal one ;-)) As far as I can tell, the only real issue is #1 above. If that is the case then I propose: java-jre java-jdk This is not a problem if you refer to a Sun trademarked Java product (and affiliated vendors like IBM, Blackdown etc) java-jre-nonfree java-jdk-nonfree So you think Sun will be OK with that? I'm not sure. The first two would be used by all implementations, whether free of non-free. The last two would be reserved for non-free implementations. That's what we want but with classpath-* for free java and java-* for non-free implementations. But I strongly disagree with using classpath-* for free versions, and saving java for non-free implementations. That encourages the use of the non-free implementations. How about java-* for both free and non-free, and then if some package explicitely requires non-free they can depend on sun-java5-jre. Charles -- Saves your Jack -- Holds your Jill Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1939/saves_your_jack signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Fry wrote: Note that I added a paragraph from a proposal from Stefan Gybas, modified by Ben Burton (see Bug#227587). Even if they did not really get a consensus, I think, with the change of the virtual packages to classpath-jre, classpath-jdk, java-jre and java-jdk, the proposal of Stefan is good to integrate in our policy. I strongly oppose the classpath/java distinction for classpath vs. non-free JREs and JDKs. Instead I propose dropping classpath-* as well, and only using java-jre and java-jdk. So people that wants to use Java should install non-free software? That's not possible in Debian! Maybe I just have never seen a place where the distinction would be useful, but in my mind it widens the gap between free and non-free Java implementations. An ideal Debian world should, it seems, define JRE and JDK virtual packages in a way that works for free implementations, and can then be used for non-free implementations. You are right but it's not the actual reality. When free vm's will be 100% compatible with non-free ones, maybe we'll be able to drop the classpath-* virtual packages, but keep in mind that Java is a trademark of Sun Microsystems and in the license of Java, we couldn't replace a tool from the jdk with another with the same functionality! I'm not sure Sun Microsystems'd like the idea of our virtual java-* packages to be provided by free vm's! I'm really not sure this is legal! Maybe you have another proposal (I mean a legal one ;-)) Cheers, - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEYzPv4vzFZu62tMIRAkJiAJ0UqIbvQLhD96ulbQGJYD7M4VH7cgCgqpe3 71q5UXeiX+J7VfJ1VWKeSbc= =WfGe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
I strongly oppose the classpath/java distinction for classpath vs. non-free JREs and JDKs. Instead I propose dropping classpath-* as well, and only using java-jre and java-jdk. So people that wants to use Java should install non-free software? That's not possible in Debian! No, I want them to be able to use free software by default. The current distinction will lead people to nonfree solutions by default. Maybe I just have never seen a place where the distinction would be useful, but in my mind it widens the gap between free and non-free Java implementations. An ideal Debian world should, it seems, define JRE and JDK virtual packages in a way that works for free implementations, and can then be used for non-free implementations. You are right but it's not the actual reality. When free vm's will be 100% compatible with non-free ones, maybe we'll be able to drop the classpath-* virtual packages, but keep in mind that Java is a trademark of Sun Microsystems and in the license of Java, we couldn't replace a tool from the jdk with another with the same functionality! It seems that there are two separate issues. Let me be sure that I understand them correctly: 1) You want to have different virtual packages for free and non-free JVMs so that when there is no free JVM to meet a packages needs it can depend on a generic non-free JVM? 2) I don't see the trademark problem. There are already virtual packages that use the word java. What would be the difference between continuing the same trend? I'm not sure Sun Microsystems'd like the idea of our virtual java-* packages to be provided by free vm's! I'm really not sure this is legal! See point #2 above. Maybe you have another proposal (I mean a legal one ;-)) As far as I can tell, the only real issue is #1 above. If that is the case then I propose: java-jre java-jdk java-jre-nonfree java-jdk-nonfree The first two would be used by all implementations, whether free of non-free. The last two would be reserved for non-free implementations. Charles -- The wolf Is shaved So neat and trim Red Riding Hood Is chasing him Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1952/the_wolf signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
Note that I added a paragraph from a proposal from Stefan Gybas, modified by Ben Burton (see Bug#227587). Even if they did not really get a consensus, I think, with the change of the virtual packages to classpath-jre, classpath-jdk, java-jre and java-jdk, the proposal of Stefan is good to integrate in our policy. I strongly oppose the classpath/java distinction for classpath vs. non-free JREs and JDKs. Instead I propose dropping classpath-* as well, and only using java-jre and java-jdk. Maybe I just have never seen a place where the distinction would be useful, but in my mind it widens the gap between free and non-free Java implementations. An ideal Debian world should, it seems, define JRE and JDK virtual packages in a way that works for free implementations, and can then be used for non-free implementations. Charles -- His face Was loved By just his mother He Burma-Shaved And now-- Oh, brother http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1949/his_face signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 package: java-common version: 0.24 Hi all, One of the result of our discussions in Oldenburg (devjam) and in Bruxelles (FOSDEM) is about the use of the virtual packages. One of our reflexion was the number in the java*-runtime and java*-compiler was not useful anymore. First, nobody uses Java 1 and the state of GNU Classpath is far better then Java 1. For some informations, you can go to the draft: http://wiki.debian.org/Java/Draft I'd like to reach a consensus about the attached patch before sending other proposals. If you read the wiki, you'll notice I added a line with *later* so I know where I have to re-start the futur proposals. Note that I added a paragraph from a proposal from Stefan Gybas, modified by Ben Burton (see Bug#227587). Even if they did not really get a consensus, I think, with the change of the virtual packages to classpath-jre, classpath-jdk, java-jre and java-jdk, the proposal of Stefan is good to integrate in our policy. I also integrated another proposal from Stefan Gybas, seconded by Ben Burton (see Bug#227594). There was a consensus about it so I don't think we need further discussion about this. With this proposal, we can close: - - this bug ;-) ; - - #227587 (integrate the java libs dependency); - - #227594 (integrate the removal of 'binfmt_misc'); - - #158984 (no more java 2 something); - - #354026 (no more java*-runtime); - - #166370 (because we have *-jdk and not *-compiler); I attached a patch so it'd be easier to read. Thanks for your comments or for seconding the proposal, - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEU8ju4vzFZu62tMIRAlqPAJ0bi7Cv/BTQ8WTw1TCrqRpEXVrCRQCfUFxH x4KgDEiCjdpFukjpoDqpXkc= =qDAF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Index: policy.xml === --- policy.xml (revision 2101) +++ policy.xml (working copy) @@ -5,11 +5,11 @@ !ENTITY must emphasismust/emphasis !ENTITY may emphasismay/emphasis !ENTITY should emphasisshould/emphasis -!ENTITY jvm emphasisjava-virtual-machine/emphasis -!ENTITY j1r emphasisjava1-runtime/emphasis -!ENTITY j2r emphasisjava2-runtime/emphasis -!ENTITY jc emphasisjava-compiler/emphasis -!ENTITY j2c emphasisjava2-compiler/emphasis +!ENTITY jjre emphasisjava-jre/emphasis +!ENTITY jjdk emphasisjava-jdk/emphasis +!ENTITY cjre emphasisclasspath-jre/emphasis +!ENTITY cjdk emphasisclasspath-jdk/emphasis +!ENTITY djava emaildebian-java@lists.debian.org/email ] book @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ edition$Revision:$ $Date:$/edition authorgroup author - surnameLundqvist/surname - firstnameOla/firstname + surnameVandyck/surname + firstnameArnaud/firstname authorblurb para - email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/email + email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/email /para para The current author of the java policy. @@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ /authorblurb /author author + surnameLundqvist/surname + firstnameOla/firstname + authorblurb + para + email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/email + /para + /authorblurb + /author + author surnameBortzmeyer/surname firstnameStephane/firstname authorblurb @@ -45,7 +54,7 @@ authorblurb para Most issues of the java policy have been discussed on the - emaildebian-java@lists.debian.org/email mailinglist. + djava; mailinglist. /para /authorblurb /author @@ -83,7 +92,7 @@ Feel free to report comments, suggestions and/or disagreements to the java-common package (email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/email) or the Debian Java mailing list - emaildebian-java@lists.debian.org/email. Change requests should + djava;. Change requests should be sent as a bug to the java-common package. /para @@ -93,8 +102,8 @@ titlePolicy/title para - Virtual packages are created: jc;, j2c;, - jvm;, j1r; and j2r;. + Virtual packages are created: jjre;, jjdk;, + cjre; and cjdk;. /para para @@ -111,10 +120,10 @@ para Both are shipped as Java bytecode (filename*.class/filename files, packaged in a filename*.jar/filename archive) and with - an Architecture: all since Java bytecode is supposed to be portable. - It may additionally be shipped as machine code, as produced for example - by the GNU Compiler for Java, in a separate architecture-specific - package. + an Architecture: all since Java bytecode is supposed to be + portable. It may additionally be shipped as BC (binary compatible) + compiled machine code, as produced by the GNU Compiler for Java, + in a separate architecture-specific package. /para para @@ -126,38 +135,27 @@ titleVirtual machines/title para - Java virtual machines must; provide jvm; and - depend on
Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arnaud Vandyck wrote: [...] One of the result of our discussions in Oldenburg (devjam) and in Bruxelles (FOSDEM) is about the use of the virtual packages. I forgot to thanks Wolfgang Baer, Michael Koch, Matthias Klose, Stefan Gybas, Ben Burton and all those who participated in the discussions (sorry if I forgot some people). - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEU85X4vzFZu62tMIRAshaAKCceYXvUIb/MRBC7XAKr0BE88q/CgCgryT8 JUcF9rQyCntGEFukY44XbKA= =iNkx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
