Re: [PROPOSAL] 4. RfD for a new debian java policy
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> and will let the user choose one default VM, which will be used,
>> when it is include in your list of 'known working VMs'.
>Rightio.
I take that as an agreement?
Another point is, that this is common code and so it should be factored
into some common place. I hope the ant CDBS classes will have the same
code, so that building will be something like 'ANT_ENVIRONEMTS="..."'
instead of 'JAVA_HOME_DIRS="..."'
[JAVA_HOME, CLASSPATH]
>> 'need to' ist not a 'must' or 'should'.
>Then can we please change it to 'may', not 'need to' so that nobody gets
>confused?
I've changed the words in both cases to 'should state it in the
manpage and may state it at runtime'. IMO, this *should* be in the
manpage. I'm not happy with the words though, they sound really
'constructed' to me :/
I would really be happy if someone could go over all my 'abuse' of
English language, before we make this a little more official... It's
two years since last I was in GB...
I'm just going to write the 'findjava' code and will tar.gz the
java-config, update-java-config and findjava scripts together with a
up2date policy.xml to www.katzien.de/debian/java/.
Jan
--
Jan Schulz jasc@gmx.net
"Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."
Reply to: