From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29574 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 17:34:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 29563 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 17:34:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n47HYYIj023012; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:34:34 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n47HYVci017842; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:34:31 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (vpn-14-156.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.156]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n47HYR24027146; Thu, 7 May 2009 13:34:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4A031BA2.9050107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Boreham CC: java Subject: Re: GCJ with OpenJDK Java API instead of GNU Classpath References: <17c6771e0905070828n441803edx6cf6291ed9b01e5e@mail.gmail.com> <1241713494.3769.6.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A030CE7.6050309@redhat.com> <1241716199.3769.16.camel@fedora.wildebeest.org> <4A031855.3030505@redhat.com> <4A03193F.4020005@boreham.org> In-Reply-To: <4A03193F.4020005@boreham.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 David Boreham wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> That doesn't make it not a serious option. It just means that >> you don't want to do it, and you don't think that the gcj >> community should do it. It's still a serious option. >> > Not really. The problem is that the test can only be run by special people > under special circumstances. Yes. > So only the binaries produced by those special people can be said to have > passed the test. People in general can't run the test, reproduce its > results, > test bug fixes, and so on. > Agreed. > Therefore it's not a useful option for an open > source project. That doesn't follow. The question is whether getting the JCK and using it is a serious option. It certainly is a serious option for anyone who needs it: they get the JCK, run it on their build, and by doing so check Java compatibility. It's a useful option for those who are prepared to get the JCK, and when they put their changes back into the common sources, everyone benefits. No, it's not the paradigm of open development, and it's not an ideal situation. Andrew.