Re: [PROPOSAL] New Virtual Packages and way to handle Classpath

[Jan Schulz <jasc.usenet@gmx.de>]

Hallo Ben,


* Ben Burton wrote:
>FWIW (DFSG, point 4):
>  "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
>  community. We will place their interests first in our priorities."
>I would therefore very much expect Java policy to be designed with free
>JVMs as the focus, not as an afterthought.

Isn't it? Lets also say, that I set my prioritys in this case 50-50
beween 'users' (which may require a unfree JVM) and 'free software'.

For the users, which want unfree JVM, the new policy has the 'unfree
interface', which will make this JVM work with our packaging system
'out of the box'.

For 'free software' the new proposal will give us a system, which can
actually be controled. It also says that 'all VM, which will work'
should be depend upon. So that requires that a package is tested
against all available java VMs. This is almost the same as the 'motif'
paragraph in the debian policy, which deals with a similar situation.

Jan
-- 
Jan Schulz                     jasc@gmx.net
     "Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."