Re: Virtual Packages proposal
On Sun, Feb 22, 1998 at 09:44:16PM -0500, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> >ANy need to depend: on jdk1.0 or jdk1.1 yet though?
> Sure. I've been consider packaging jCVS, which would require
> java-virtual-machine and the classes from the 1.1 JDK.
Fair enough.
> However, I agree with Anand WRT naming. I think we need the following.
> Proposed new virtual package names have + in the left-most column:
>
> + java-compiler-1.0
> + java-compiler-1.1
> + java-virtual-machine-1.0
> + java-classes-1.0
> + java-classes-1.1
> The point is to have specifications-driven virtual package names. I
> think this is the right abstraction to embrace.
Sounds good to me. Except that I'll have to dig around to find out
which version guavac implements :-) We should discuss this on debian-policy
to get it approved.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: