Andrew John Hughes
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Wed Apr 30 16:37:02 PDT 2008
On 30/04/2008, Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com> wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > Dear IcedTea hackers,
> > I've noticed that all new packaging work is now being done solely on
> > the IcedTea6 repository which makes sense -- this is obviously what
> > needs to be packaged up and shipped in distros right now.
> > However, looking towards working on my challenge project, I ideally
> > want to be doing this on the OpenJDK tree rather than on OpenJDK6. I
> > can port the changes across locally, but would anyone be interested in
> > me pushing these back to the main IcedTea tree as well? Or, taking
> > the alternative view, does anyone have any objections to this?
> Your challenge project is the virtual machine interface, right? By "main
> IcedTea" tree, do you mean icedtea, or icedtea6? I'd rather keep the
> icedtea6 branch focused on distribution integration of OpenJDK 6, but I have
> no objection experimental work such as the VM interface being integrated on
> the icedtea branch.
Yes, you're correct about the project. I just realised I didn't make
myself that clear in the original mail. What I'm referring to is not
the VM interface work itself (though it would be nice to have that
available via IcedTea too) but merely that the icedtea branch now lags
behind the icedtea6 branch in terms of patches, etc.
In working with OpenJDK, using IcedTea would make it much easier for
me to build and work with, so having an up-to-date icedtea branch
would be very useful. As I say, I can easily merge across the patches
locally from icedtea6, but are people happy for me to push these to
the icedtea tree?
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
More information about the distro-pkg-dev