I will neither propose nor agree with a debian java policy, which will ignore this facts and make out users patch debian packages to get this working.I don't see the point of making a policy that says that packages must work with some non-packaged non-free programs. It would be nice if they do, but requiring it is a lot to ask of a packager.ot of the box, they work with the VMs, which are stated in the readme/webpage. So we can assume that a package will work with one of the 'unfree interface' versions. If we get that for free, I don't se ethe point in denying this fact to the user.If a maintainer doesn't want to get his hands dirty by installing a prorpietaryVM
[snip]
Isn't it fine if another person testifies that the package works with this-or-that JVM? I suppose this already happens with specific architectures or hardware. So if a package works with a JVM not in its depends, one can file a (wishlist?) bug againt it.then you propose that he should tell his users that the software will work with some non-free VM without being able to test it. I think that's dubious practice, really, and if I was a debian package maintainer, I wouldn't like to be forced by a policy to make claims that I can't verify.
Maybe the policy could say "A package must (should?) depend on the disjunction of all JVMs with which it has been tested succesfully". That does not force the packager to use any non-free program, but gives strength to bug reports to include another VM.
Daniel