Jan Schulz wrote:
This is a significant rewrite of my previous proposal. To make discussion alittle easier, I've broken the subject line to tell, that this is the third request for discussion.
Sorry, I've been away a couple of days when you have posted your proposal so I still need to catch up. I'll post more comments to the individual proposals when I have read all messages in the thread.
Your proposal is a complete rewrite of the Java Policy but I think this step is too big: You have changed a lot of requirements that have been discussed in the past but there has not been a consesus. For example, you have changed the naming of library JARs from the package version to the API version and you have removed the possibility to put Java classes in /usr/bin (using binfmt_misc) whithout mentioning this change (or I have missed it). While I agree with both changes, they should be in separate proposals (via bugs against the java-common package).
I also like the idea of specifing the directory layout for packages that provide a virtual machine, e.g. bin/java. What I don't like are your proposed changes to Ant to support different versions of e.g. javadoc. I don't want to maintain a forked package, all changes from upstream will IMHO cause just confusion for the end users.
So I suggest that you file bug reports for the individual changes you want to make. I have uploaded a new version of the java-common package which has the maintainer set to this mailing list. This means that all bug reports with proposed changes will automatically go to the mailing list for discussion.
Stefan