Re: The proposed java policy have now moved.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:27:12PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
>
> Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
> both java-virtual-machine *and* java1/2-runtime now ? Why is this so ?
Well the java1/2-runtime are just virtual packages. But of course we
can update the policy to say that every package that provide
java1/2-runtime must also depend on java-virtual-machine.
Should we do that?
> I would have thought depending on java1/2-runtime would implicitly
> mean that the software requires a java-virtual-machine ?
>
> Now that we have java1/2-runtime, what does java-virtual-machine
> actually mean now ? (do we even need it anymore ?) does it mean 'any'
> jvm ? (in which case depending on it and java1/2 would be slightly
> contradictory wouldn't it ?)
The virtual machine is the program that you run.
The rumtime is the classes.
> Or have I missed the point entirely ? :-)
No. :)
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- 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: