Re: Versions for java-virtual-machine
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:24:35PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:11:43PM -0300, Julio wrote:
> > > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1.2) when installing (or being set by update-alternatives), since it's better to bind some packages on virtual machines of specific versions.
> >
> > I agree with this concept as well.
> >
> > also. can we make it "jvm", instead of "java-virtual-machine"?
> >
> > jvm-sun-1.1
> > jvm-sun-1.2
> > jvm-iso-?
> >
> > It would probably be prudent to eliminate the word "java" from every
> > Debian package name, description, etc. since it is a trademark first and
> > a language second.
>
> FWIW, I like the idea too. :) The netscape package situation was a mess, and
> the virtual packages helps out immensly. I would like to know which packages
> are needed to do java developement versus java runtime -- and the virtual
> packages did a slick enough job with a similar problem and netscape. :)
Thank you. :)
Adam (the netscape maintainer)
Reply to: