[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:


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? :)


// 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: