Bug#176629: gij-3.2: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
> > According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> > support the the complete java runtime environment.
Well, AFAICT (looking at policy linked to www.debian.org), the Java policy
isn't particularly explicit. Section 2.1 states:
Java virtual machines must provide java-virtual-machine and depend on
java-common. They can also provide the runtime environment that the package
contains (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime). If it does not provide the
files itself it must depend on the needed runtime environment.
My understanding is that the free JVMs are in various states of support for
java1 and java2. For instance (and I could be wrong), gij support most but
not all of java1, but also supports a fair amount of java2. The supported
runtime environment for any given JVM is not at all black and white.
If we're going to follow the policy so pedantically that the only JVMs
supporting java1-runtime are those that fill the entirity of Sun's java1
spec, I'd say we've defeated the purpose of these virtual packages.
For instance, most of the Java apps I maintain require some level of runtime
classes, so I can't just depend on java-virtual-machine. But they pretty
much run on most/all free JVMs, and I'd like to acknowledge that and allow
the user choice in which JVM they use. Do I then have to Depend: gij | kaffe
| sablevm | orp | etc etc etc?
I'd really like this issue to be resolved on email@example.com before JVMs
start removing java1-runtime from their provides lists as requested by these
If AWT specifically is going to be a big problem, perhaps even a third
virtual package: java1-runtime, java1-awt-runtime, java2-runtime?
CCing this to #176628 since a similar bug seems to have been filed on