On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:22:31AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 05:28, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > The packagers used a specific free runtime to make the eclipse package
> > build and work, so they made that runtime specifically part of the
> > dependencies, as that's a configuration the packagers can focus on to
> > support.
> > You are most welcome to contribute, and help improve the eclipse packages.
> This does _not_ make a lot of sense. It would make much more sense to suggest gcj/gij
> and depend on java-virtual-machine. This leaves it up the the user to decide if he can
> use a non-free jvm. I my case many of the apps I use (non-debian) fail with the free
> jvms. In short this type of depends is, IMO a bug. It will force me, and many others,
> to bypass the packaging system, which is usually a bad idea.
Your argument is only reasonable if your non-free Java environment is a
complete drop-in replacement for building and running Eclipse.
If not, then you're asking for extra work to be done to support multiple
JVMs. If that's what you need, patches are probably welcome.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: Eclipse
- From: Marcin Dębicki <email@example.com>