Re: java2-runtime, was Re: Bug#227587: [PROPOSAL] Java library dependencies
Only one comment inline.
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 17:35, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> [Not CC'ing the bug since it's not related to it]
>
> Jan Schulz wrote:
>
> > Which version? The content changed quite havily with the discussion :)
>
> The original one. As I've said, I've not yet read the discussion yet.
> I'll send my comments in a couple of days so we can discuss all this at
> FOSDEM.
>
> > Even worse, even if BD packages are installed (And BTW, recent BD
> > *packages* will probably crash on a recent sid. See the last mails in
> > debian-java or my eclipse buglog :( ), as sablevm seems to set a very
> > high u-a priority.
>
> To avoid misunderstandings: I don't think that sablevm should provide
> java2-runtime but then again we don't have an official definition of
> java2-runtime so it's the maintainer's decision.
Hmm. There's a lot that can be said about this.
What I think we MUST do is aim to have a end user application, that runs
on Java, work as expected. To this end, I see java2-runtime being
provided by runtimes that conform to Sun's published standards, and no
others. However we verify that is up in the air. Additionally,
applications can conditionally depend on other VM's KNOWN TO WORK.
I don't even know if this fits in with the current thread. I just wanted
to say it. :)
>
> The /usr/bin/java* alternatives don't matter since tomcat4 does not use
> them. I'm concerned that not all required packages are installed to run
> tomcat4 although all depencenies are satisfied. I have to remove
> java2-runtime and only depend on the known to work JVMs.
>
> > This whole system is a mess!
>
> I fully agree with you! The only useful things in the current Java
> Policy are /usr/share/java for JARs, /usr/lib/jni and the naming of
> library packages. Everything else is based on wrong assumtions. :-(
>
> Stefan
>
Reply to: