Re: [PROPOSAL] 3. RfD on new debian java policy
> You mean something like
>
> |You must depend on all working java virtual maschines and search all
> |this packages for the java virtual maschine binary.
Yes.
> I thought that this was fairly obvious... I mean, it's pretty stupit
> if not :)
There are lots of things in debian policy that are either obvious or
common-sense. It certainly can't hurt to include it.
> >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.
I'm not really comfortable with the idea of "don't test, just assume it
works until someone tells you otherwise". Yes, it happened with flex
but that was a once-off. With this java proposal it will become
institutionalised.
> >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.
> --
Works for me.
> Most users will anyway only install one version of a virtual maschine.
This I find unlikely, especially if packages are explicitly depending on
known-working JVMs. The more java packages I have installed, the more
likely it is that dependencies require me to have a variety of different
JVMs on my system.
Ben. :)
Reply to: