Jesse Stockall wrote:
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, thenmake 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.
As someone who generally just lurks on this list (my interest is as a user of Java runtime environments/virtual machines/whatever rather than as a packager or developer), I concur with Jesse. The provides should not describe packages as something which they are not.
As a user, I would expect a package claiming to provide java1-runtime to provide a Java 1 runtime environment, not some bits of it. Yes, I'm aware that provides exist mainly for the use of the package management system, but they are still a useful guide to the functionality of packages and should come across as honest and straightforward.
And the clincher:How many times do you want to explain to newbies that a package that provides java1-runtime doesn't really contain a full Java 1 runtime environment? ;c)
-- Geoff Beaumont Geoff@stormhammer.com