Re: [PROPOSAL] New Virtual Packages and way to handle Classpath
I'm afraid that I agree with Matt. As much as I like the idea of
abstract dependencies it seems that it will become much more complex and
much harder than just depending on a runtime that is known to work. The
core issue being that there are far fewer VMs than there are possible
base class library dependencies. Easier just to say "j2sdk1.4 | kaffe |
orp" if that is what is known to work.
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:40, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that Java core classes are grouped into
> entities like "JDK 1.2", when, by and large, these groups are not
> represented in Debian (or in free Java in general). Instead, they implement
> some subset of this functionality. However, the classes are still grouped
> this way in the JVM (rt.jar and such). So we can neither have useful
> JDK-level dependencies (because they're never met), nor can we have useful
> package- or class-level dependencies, because you can't mix and match core
> classes.
>
> The most practical solution at this point seems to be what everyone is doing
> anyway, which is to use or-expressions which reflect what actually works,
> and not an abstract idea of what is provided. For example, a package which
> works with any java2 runtime, but also works with the interfaces provided by
> kaffe, uses "java2-runtime | kaffe", etc.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler ean@brainfood.com
Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Reply to: