Re: ITP: java-common and friends (Warning: policy problem)
Stephane, I applaud your efforts to try to work out a Java subpolicy.
Note that to put a subpolicy into effect, you don't really need any
blessing of any sort, just some agreement between the maintainers of
the relevant packages.
I am not still on the debian-java lists. Probably you get a lot of
silence out of Debian developers since, as you know, Java still has a
cloud of non-freeness about it and probably the slant of developers is
a little different. Still, I think the debian Java subpolicy you are
trying to achieve is important, and very useful for users who are Java
developers.
Regarding your proposal, I just glanced at it again. I would suggest
that you are going to run into serious limitations because you are not
versioning the java virtual packages. IMHO, and I think I've
mentioned it before, packages should depend on, provide, etc,
java-compiler-1.1 and java-compiler-2.0 (1.2 == 2.0, right?) and
java-virtual-machine-1.1 and java-virtual-machine-2.0. This is
because a particular java package may require, for instance Java 2.0,
and it just won't work on a 1.1 or 1.0 JVM. Thus, if you are going to
leverage the debian dependancy system for java, you'll need to be a
bit more granular than you are currently being.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: