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

Re: Packages that require Java 2 ?

On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > 	Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > 	provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> > j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and
> > java2-virtual-machine.
> 	*nod*. I agree.
> > This at least means that even though you don't have dependencies for
> > virtual packages, you still have a way of requiring Java2.  But OTOH
> > j2sdk1.3 will still satisfy the less stringent requirement of "any java",
> > i.e. java-virtual-machine.
> 	Yep. We're on the same level here.
> 	Ok, so what happens now ? This kind of proposal is something that
> 	should really be added to the java-policy as it concerns the base
> 	components of a java system. How does this happen (assuming it's
> 	accepted) ?
> 	Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> 	comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> 	in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea... i have been reading this discussion, and
packaged Jmol for Debian as a non-maintainer (with comments from some Debian 
people) i recognize the problem as Jmol needs J2 as well...

I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a 
java2-virtual-machine concept...

> 	If there are no major hassles, then mid next week I'll send in a more
> 	formal proposal for a java2-virtual-machine concept, which can be
> 	further discussed if needed. ITP's, etc, could then follow.
> 	How does that sound ?

Go for it!

BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy? Most Debian 
developers do not know about Java enough to decide on these things...


Reply to: