Re: Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> >
> > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> > I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
> > (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
>
> This is not a bad proposal at all. It would actually make some things easier.
>
Maybe for packagers, but not for users.
> What do other people say about this?
>
Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and functioning VM
should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a Java VM,
Debian should not pretend that JDK 1.1 didn't include AWT.
If there is a desire to have the incomplete VM's provide something, then
make it java1-nogui-runtime, or java1-noawt-runtime.
Someone who is not familiar with Debian's Java policy (and this email thread)
would expect (and rightly so) that a package that provides java1-runtime
would be able to support any code written for Sun's JDK 1.1.
> They actually do not need the number in them. java-awt-runtime should
> be ok as there is no (correct?) difference between java1 and java2 when it
> comes to awt.
>
There are plenty of differences between versions of AWT, java.awt.Font for example.
> Same applies to swing, or?
Same for Swing, JDK 1.2.2 Swing is not the same as JDK 1.4 Swing.
Jesse
Reply to: