Bug#227587: [PROPOSAL] Java library dependencies
Hallo Stefan,
* Stefan Gybas wrote:
>I've read Jan's proposal yesterday (but not the following discussion
>with Dalibor and others, so I won't comment yet)
Which version? The content changed quite havily with the discussion :)
>and I don't see how his
>proposal solves this problem. AFAICS his proposal simply removes the
>java*-runtime virtual package altogether.
Yes, it does. They get replace with direct dependecies to the real
packages.
>No, I push it to maintainers of Java applications which use the library.
IMO this is a good thing until we can do the dependencies in a
findjava script. This is not yet implemnted in the proposed policy and
also not in the scripts.
>Also wrong. But since the latest sablevm package now provies
>java2-runtime, my whole proposal is superfluous: sablevm will be
>installed to satisfy the java2-runtime dependency if you don't already
>have Blackdown packages installed and applications like tomcat4 will
>simply not start. That's also a way to solve a problem...
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.
This whole system is a mess!
Jan
--
Jan Schulz jasc@gmx.net
"Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."
Reply to: