Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
Hi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> java1-runtime
> thanks
>
> W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> > Package: sablevm
> > Version: 1.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
> >
> > According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> > support the the complete java runtime environment. As sablevm fails
> > to provide working java.awt.* classes, the provides on this package is
> > incorrect. Please remove it until such time as sablevm has working
> > support for java.awt.*.
>
> I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common
> package) and couldn't find such explict statment.
"Java virtual machines must provide java-virtual-machine and depend on java-common.
They can also provide the runtime environment that the package contains
(java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime). If it does not provide the files itself it
must depend on the needed runtime environment."
So the policy is a bit vauge. I suggest that we change it to the following:
"Java virtual machines must provide java-virtual-machine and depend on java-common.
They may also provide a runtime environment (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime)
if it contains the complete set of runtime files. If it does not provide the files
itself it must depend on the needed runtime environment."
> But even if it were there - I *refuse* to remove this Provides: because
> Sablevm _does_ provide java1 runtime env. with the expeption of things
> which don't work yet. *These things* I belive can be easily called bugs
> for simplicity.
>
> Severity "important" seems to be the right one here:
> "important - a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a
> package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone"
>
> We all know that the fight for free Java (tfffj) is only beginning.
> And I don't think we would support free java and free software by
> marking every of today's free JVMs and their classlibs as unusable
> because of some lacks or bugs. Especially when there's effort under
> way to remove them.
>
> The Java Policy is to help us, to support us and to guide us.
Agreed. But in some cases it is good that it forbid some things. In this
case it is probably ok to keep the provide line, but only if you can see
fixes to the bugs in the (near?) future. If not you should drop it and
wait until it is (at least about to) be fixed.
> The Java Policy is for us, not the other way.
Agreed too. It is for us, not a specific person.
Regards,
// Ola
> Kind regards
>
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +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: