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

[Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>]

> >I beg to disagree. I want to be able to change my preferences at runtime,
> >instead of having to rely on a packager to get it right when he packages the
> >application.
> 
> Somewhere else you said, that it is ok for you if the packagers only
> uses one dependency (which implys, that only one java binary can be
> used).

I also agree with both sentiments (preferences should be changeable at
runtime, but it's okay if packagers aren't forced to list non-free JVMs
in their dependencies).

In particular, one follows from the other - if I'm not listing a
non-free JVM because I haven't tested it, it makes sense to allow the
user the option of running against a non-free JVM regardless if they
really want to try it.

And given that you are advocating packagers claiming support for JVMs
that they've never tested, I think it's particularly critical that a
user be able to change the JVM at runtime.

> If you want that this badly, please write the code.

This attitude works quite well for wishlist bugs.  I think it does not
work so well when drafting a binding policy document, which you *really*
want to get right.

Ben.