Re: [PROPOSAL] New Virtual Packages and way to handle Classpath
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> I wanted to say, that you have a interface for the 'unfree' ones and
>> this interface will work, even if you have 'not working' JVM
>> installed. The current interface (/usr/bin/java) does not garantee,
>> that your package is working.
>I don't think that an 'interface' can guarantee that a package is working with
>a specific VM environment. Only testing by the ?ackagers and users can
>guarantee that.
Yes. I agree with that for the 'free' alternatives. IMO the 'unfree'
ones don't need that much testing, as they can changed without a
problem. At least as far as I have experienced it.
>>From debian I'd expect a policy that helps and guides java apps/libs/jvm
>maintainers to build and package their stuff with a focus on free VMs, gives
>pointers who to get in topuch with if things don't work, has a section on free
>java developers working on providing a free java infrastructure and how to
>contribute to it, and provides the necessary bits of information on how to
>deal with the legacy, proprietary VMs. Certainly not the other way round ;)
This is not the primary goal of the policy IMO. The policy is for
describing *how* a package should look like, a kind of ruleset, which
packages have to comply to. Nothing more, nothing less.
What you describe could be done in a FAQ or 'java developers reference'.
>[...] It has been a very educational
>experience for me ;)
For me as well :)
Jan
--
Jan Schulz jasc@gmx.net
"Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."
Reply to: