Subject: Re: Java for NetBSD
To: Przemys__aw Pawe__czyk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 05/29/2007 12:35:41
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:26:10PM -0500, Przemys__aw Pawe__czyk wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 09:19:27 +0200
> Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 03:56:42AM -0500, Przemys?aw Pawe?czyk wrote:
> > > Second, I wonder why GNU/Linux __can__ and __may__ have binary packag=
> > > to download and install in an easy way but __not__ NetBSD?
> > Because Sun provides binaries for Linux, but not for NetBSD. Talk to t=
> Did't you mix up cause with consequence? I asked for "cause" not the
> "result". If you answered me that "high level" talks with Sun on behalf
> of BSD community failed you'd be more informative. Linux is no match for
> Solaris, what about BSD? Java is present in medium to bigger
> corporations. Wouldn't it be more judicious to put more effort onto
> "Java for BSD Project" even at the espense of development in other
> fields? I hope I sound logical.
Unfortuntately they are the same here.
Java runtime binaries (and I think the development kit too) have to have=20
Sun's blessing to be distributed. Obviously ones that Sun distributes are=
For quite a long time, we got not traction at Sun about getting permission=
to have a NetBSD Java. Little difference was seen between us an FreeBSD,=20
so the FreeBSD version was deemed "Good enough for NetBSD," and we=20
couldn't do anything.
Recently (past few years), Sun has been more open about licensing a NetBSD=
Java. Unfortunately there are issues in libpthread in NetBSD 4.0 that=20
prevent it from working. I think -current stands a much better chance, and=
I also hope to address some of the concurrency issues on the=20
wrstuden-fixsa branch (which is a netbsd-4 branch).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----