Re: policy proposal: java2 alternative
Hi
As the policy maintainer I would like you to file this as a bug
to java-common too. It helps me to remember it.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> I'm sponsoring a (contrib) package that depends on
> java2-runtime. I (as a user of the package) will have to install the
> Blackdown VM to make it work, but I still want other java programs to
> use Kaffe because it's free. Pointing the "java" alternative to Kaffe
> will break the package, though ...
True. But if you already have installed the non-free version why use
the free one? Do you think it is better/faster or?
> So I propose the following addition to java-policy: Providers of
> "java2-runtime" must also provide a "java2" alternative. Packages
> depending on "java2-runtime" can use this to be sure to get a
> java2-compliant environment. This allows for different defaults for
> java1 and java2 environments.
What do other people think about this solution?
> The same could apply to "java2-compiler" and "javac2", but I'm not
> sure if that is too useful (what *are* the differences between
> java1-compiler and java2-compiler, exactly?).
Well the java2* do not break as much. I have not find much other
differences.
In the same thread as this mail I saw a question about how much it is
to fix before it can be in a non-proposed state. Well...
Much can be done but the main reason why it is not a true policy is that
last time I tried there was a lot of things that people have not agreed
upon. Also it was just before the release of woody so no policy additions
was possible.
Regards,
// Ola
> --
> Robbe
--
--------------------- 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: