Dave Pawson <davep <at> dpawson.co.uk> writes: > > On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 21:09, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > FOP needs to compile with a free Java compiler and run in a free Java > > environment to be part of a completely free toolchain. > > That's a view. I don't support it. > Sun provide Java. Lets use it. FOP is free software. GNU/Linux is free software. There is no need to use a non-free wedge in between if equivalent[1] free software replacements exist. :) > > One reason for using gcj for compiling is that if we need to report bugs > > with other free software, our components are going to be suspect if they > > have been tainted by non-free components during compiling or runtime. > Your definition. Not mine. Some non-free java compilers are known to generate broken bytecode that nicely passes through Sun's VM, but fails to meet the constraints of the JVM specification 2nd edition. Jacks[2] is your friend if you want to verify quality of java compilers. > What's your definition of a bug in this context? A bug in the shipped bytecode introduced by a bug in a non-free compiler, obviously. You can fix the free software ones, but you can't fix the non-free ones. A cursory glance over the fixed bugs list of the JDK 1.4.2[3] suffices to show that Sun keeps finding and fixing bugs in their compiler. Relying on proprietary software for the toolchain puts a free software distributor at the disadvantage of not being able to fix the bugs themselves. They end up being at the mercy of the proprietary vendor. > Any reason we shouldn't support fop by feeding back to them? I don't see how using gcj would prevent feeding back to fop. Would you care to elaborate? > > As hard as it may be to start, having a completely free toolchain will > > be blessing. > > To whom? To everyone, obviously. Including Sun.[4] Given that Sun does not certify JDK on Fedora, what's the point in going out of one's ways in order to support it? It's not certified to be compatible anyway, therefore there is no guarantee from Sun that the JDK on Fedora will behave in the same way as the JDK on a certified distribution. Why expose oneself to issues that one has no chance of addressing? cheers, dalibor topic [1] Or better, in my obviously opiniated opinion. :) [2] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/cvs/jikes/jacks/ [3] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/fixedbugs/fixedbugs.html [4] They'll finally get a break from all the people telling them how to license Java.
