Re: additions to java-policy
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
Since Xerces tends to give a lot of trouble moving from one version to
another, even within the 2.x series!, a more granular packaging would
be nice... i.e. separate packages for 2.3 and 2.4, etc...
Probably yes. But I don't have the time to maintain that many packages.
And it also requires a lot af additional work for the FTP admins when
they have to add new packages and remove old ones once no other packages
need them any longer.
The alternative would be to file bugs against packages with fail to work
when the next Xerces2 package is made... which is fine too.
I'd rather use this approach.
In my mentors.debian.net packages (jmol, cdk, jchempaint) it actually
refers to the version jar in /usr/share/java, because of the problems one
now and then encounters with using several Xerces2 versions...
So you also have a versioned package dependency? If not, your package
will break if xerces is updated. If yes, your package will keep xerces
from being updated (and you could directly use the unversioned JAR since
you know xerces's version from the package version). Both cases are bad
IMHO.
Anyway, if I understand correctly, the only reason why you think it is
unneeded, is that it is not clearly used.
No, I think it's unneeded because of the above scenario.
Stefan
Reply to: