Re: [PROPOSAL] 3. RfD on new debian java policy
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> Java libraries must depend on the needed working runtime
>> environments, including the virtual package names of working
>> versions of the "unfree" bin/java interface.
>If you're going to mandate that developers keep a list of working JVMs
>for their dependencies, you should probably mandate that one of these
>working JVMs be used in the startup script. Having a JVM installed on
>the system (via a depends) has no bearing on whether an app's startup
>script actually calls one of these working JVMs.
You mean something like
|You must depend on all working java virtual maschines and search all
|this packages for the java virtual maschine binary.
I thought that this was fairly obvious... I mean, it's pretty stupit
if not :)
>Note that this is going to get messy for packagers - the packager of
>each java app or library will presumably need to test this app on all
>JVMs with each new release, and will also need to be aware of when each
>JVM makes a new release of its own so they can test their app with the
>new JVM version.
I hope that this won't be the case. Anyway, we had such a situation
with for example flex and so I think thatc an be 'managed' with simple
bugreports.
As for new releases of apps: yes, that means probably some testing.
Like with almost every other package as well..
>This could also create political problems for packagers who will not
>install non-free software on their machines (since policy mandates that
>packagers keep track of which non-free JVMs work as well).
Unfree VM are only sperated by the major.minro version, so I guess,
that if teh readmy states 'You need a 1.4 virtual maschine', than it
should be enought to depend on java-runtime-1.4 and be done with it.
Bugreports will tell you more.
IMO you can depend oon the fact, that all java code will run on this
sun licenced Virtual maschines.
>> As "unfree" virtual maschines of a certain version almost certainly
>> will run code developed for this version, all packages must also use
>> kown working "unfree" interfaces, when they search for a possible
>> java binary.
>I would make this clearer. I presume you mean that "when searching
>for a known working JVM, non-free JVMs should be included in this search
>list". However, the text could well be misinterpreted as "the non-free
>JVMs should be used wherever possible, before searching for free JVMs".
How about
--
As "unfree" virtual maschines of a certain version almost
certainly will run code developed for this version, the "unfree"
interfaces for that version should be included in this search list.
The order, in which this list is searched is up to the package
maintainer.
--
I don't really mind in which direction this list is searched,
especially as we can't really make asumtion, what 'java' the user
preferes.
Most users will anyway only install one version of a virtual maschine.
>> A package should use ant to build a package ...
>I disagree with this working most strongly. [...]
>I would suggest changing this paragraph to "If a package uses ant to
>build the package, ...". This section of policy should IMHO be a
>simple "if-else" block, not an explicit push for developers to use ant.
Yes, thats what I wanted to say with this two sections. Changed.
Jan
--
Jan Schulz jasc@gmx.net
"Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."
Reply to: