Re: j2se1.3 now in /Incoming
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > > What are we doing about the java2 dependency issue? There was a long
> > > thread about this recently and (I believe) general consensus was that
> > > there should be:
> > >
> > > Provides: java2-virtual-machine (or java2-runtime?)
> > > Provides: java2-compiler
> >
> > Well. I have to ask one thing (before adding such things to the
> > policy). Have the virtual machine changed (in any strange way) or
> > is it just the runtime environment that really have changed. I skip
> > all performance parts and just focus on compatibility.
>
> Not quite sure I understand the question here; are you asking whether the
> JVM specs have changed along with the API?
Yes that is my question.
> I'm not sure how this affects the discussion either way; the reason for
> providing java2-* packages is that there is such a vast API compatibility
> gap between it and java 1.1/1.0. If the JVM specs change as well, then
> shouldn't this make such virtual packages all the more necessary?
Well it changes in this way.
* If the jvm specs have not changed we should have these virtual packages
to depend on:
java-virtual-machine
java1-runtime
java2-runtime
* If the jvm specs have changed we should have these virtual packages
to depend on:
java1-virtual-machine
java2-virtual-machine
and maybe java1-runtime
and maybe java2-runtime
Maybe I have forgot something but that is the basic idea.
Regards,
// Ola
> I have a strange feeling I've missed your point entirely.
>
> Ben.
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 584 36 LINKÖPING |
| +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +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: