Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

[Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia]

Hi all,

I just to clear any possible misunderstandings.

After reading in a previous post that Classpath was not being
"actively developed" anymore, I said that it would be a pity to let
the project die, and suggested that perhaps it was time to look for an
adopter (http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2014-August/003270.html)

My point was that *if* the current maintainers didn't have enough time
or resources to work on Classpath anymore, then *perhaps* they could
look for a "competent successor" that could take on the job. I used
the term in the same sense as Eric S Raymond in "The Cathedral and the
Bazaar". This did not imply that the current maintainers were not
competent -- that is not what I think, and it is not what I said.

I have also took quite a bit of heat for "complaining rather than
helping". I want to say that I was not complaining. I was merely
trying to be helpful. Of course anyone is free to think that this was
not helpful at all, but I hope that at least it is clear that my
*intention* was to help.

Anyway, I would like to sincerely apologize if I managed to annoy
anyone. It was never my intention.

Best,

Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
guille.rodriguez@gmail.com

Re: Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

[Andrew Haley]

On 09/05/2014 12:07 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> After reading in a previous post that Classpath was not being
> "actively developed" anymore, I said that it would be a pity to let
> the project die, and suggested that perhaps it was time to look for an
> adopter (http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2014-August/003270.html)

That was perhaps my fault; I said it was not being actively developed,
when I should have said it was not much being actively developed.
That's a subtle distinction, but one that matters to some people.

Andrew.

Re: Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

[Andrew Haley]

On 09/05/2014 06:53 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
> GCJ needs to use IcedTea.

What for?

> Unfortunately the difference between most Java developers who want
> to compile Java to a native executable and a GCC hacker is vast.

Hard to argue with that.

Andrew.

Re: Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

[Brian Jones]

> On Sep 5, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/2014 06:53 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
>> GCJ needs to use IcedTea.
>
> What for?
>

Just mean updating to OpenJDK, understanding Java 6,7,8,9,...

I always thought fitting into embedded here was a tiny bit technical
(only include just what this app needs) & mostly packaging.

Brian

>> Unfortunately the difference between most Java developers who want
>> to compile Java to a native executable and a GCC hacker is vast.
>
> Hard to argue with that.
>
> Andrew.
>

Re: Clarification and apologies (was Re: Re: GCJ ------ file type not supported by system)

[Andrew Haley]

On 06/09/14 00:36, Brian Jones wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/05/2014 06:53 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
>>> GCJ needs to use IcedTea.
>>
>> What for?
> 
> Just mean updating to OpenJDK, understanding Java 6,7,8,9,...

Absolutely.  I know what this involves, and have been looking for a
reason to do this for a long time.  I think that in some areas this
could be very useful.  But it's a lot of work, and it might be hard
to get high performance.

Andrew.