Re: Planned mass-filing of bugs: java packages only depending on java-common
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:55:22AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
Hi
There are several reasons why they are split.
1) some compilers do not require a jvm.
2) Some things compile the classes to bytecode the will not
need the jvm. This is why it is very explictly written in the
java policy that the java-virtual-machine should be suggested
for java libraries.
If java[12]-runtime is just a superset of java-virtual-machine
there is no reason for having such an explict thing for libraries
in the policy and you will always need to install a jvm even if you
might not need it.
> Ok, I should stop reading mail at 3am...
:)
> >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
> Simon> I think the autobuilder argument is valid. Autobuilders
> Simon> need the classes, but not the VM. If at all, you can make
> Simon> the VMs depend on the core classes, so people can depend on
> Simon> the core classes for compiling and a vm for execution.
>
> Yes, if the jvm depended on the -runtime that would address half the
> depndency issue but that's putting the cart before the horse. Having
> java-compiler depend on java1-runtime might help but in at least two
> cases that wouyld still result in a jvm being installed so why
> complicate things?
Because some people like to describe complicated things in a
complex way? :)
Regards,
// Ola
> --
> Stephen
>
> "If I claimed I was emporer just cause some moistened bint lobbed a
> scimitar at me they'd put me away"
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: