Re: Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:01:56AM -0500, Jesse Stockall wrote:
> 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.
Well then we have to have an alternative approach to this.
javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are differences between versions there)
javaX?-awt
javaX?-swing
Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes, java1-awt and java1-swing
Is that a better proposal. I'll make that package if it is accepted.
> > 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.
I suggest that we enfoce that all classes and functions are declared but
depricated do not have to be implemented... This way we do not have to have
java1.1-swing and java1.2-swing and java1.4-swing (etc).
I assume that it can be feasable to declare them at least?
Regards,
// Ola
> Jesse
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- 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: