On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 03:39:11PM +0200, Blackwell wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >>1) Too work intense approach to integrate Sun Java?
> >>
> >
> >http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
> >http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch5.html#s-license-concerns
> >
>
> Hello Arnaud,
>
> Debian is integrating Sun JDK/JRE via some package. That package is said
> to be more or less hardwired to current and known Sun Java versions. My
> question is if it is possible to remove that hardwiring and instead rely
> on the common denominators to be present even in future Sun Java
> versions, so that basic support for Sun Java 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 is present in
> the package at all times, rather than having it come back rejecting the
> integration because the Sun Java version is larger than what was known
> at the time of writing the integration package.
Thanks for your interest in java-package. I am one of the comaintainers of
that package. The package supports JREs and JDKs for three different vendors
at this time, typically with three versions per JRE and JDK per vendor.
Please do not take this as a personal attack, but your question represents a
rather naive viewpoint in terms of packaging a JRE/JDK. The short answer to
your question is "no, it is not possible to come up with automatic Java(TM)
package generation functionality that handles the work of integrating a JRE
and/or JDK in an accuratei, safe manner in a way that yields any significant
benefit over the current approach."
The question behind your question seems to really be "Why is the current
beta version of Sun's JRE/JDK not available to me, and is there a way to
change java-package so that I don't have to wait for maintainers to update
java-package with new versions?" This is spoken to below.
> In other words, I am suggesting a technical change in an already
> existing Debian package to make it more flexible. Is this really related
> to license questions?
[...]
No, this suggested technical approach is not related to license issues; sorry
if the thread took an unexpected turn. You do have an issue that touches on
licensing later; see below.
> >>Someone reported at freenode's ##java that make-jpkg does not work with
> >>Java 1.6.
[...]
They happen to be correct, though #debian-java, the pkg-java-maintainers
mailing list, and this mailing list are better sources for more authoritative
answers.
> >>I wonder why that is?
There are two primary influences:
1.) There is a limited amount of resource to accomplish the task.
2.) There are far more pressing needs than packaging a beta version of Sun's
JRE/JDK. This is a wishlist bug filed against java-package, #322843.
A proper first step before originating the thread would have been to
check the Debian BTS to see what bugs had been filed against java-package
and to append your request, information, or patch to any existing relevant
bug you found. If one were not present, then you could have filed a new
wishlist bug.
> >$ apt-get source java-package
> >
> >[...]
> >
> I am sorry, I don't understand this answer.
>
> After some thought I guess I get it: "Look at it yourself and fix it".
> See my next answer directly below.
>
> >>If that is all so, wouldn't make-jpkg be able to work with all Sun
> >>JDK/JRE archives (past and future), provided they maintain the
> >>up-to-this-point-known binary names properly, so that creating the
> >>symlinks works the way it should?
> >>
> >
> >If you are able to do that, you can provide a patch via our bug tracking
> >system: http://bugs.debian.org
> >File a bug report against java-package and attach the patch to the bug
> >report. Many thanks for your work in advance.
> >
>
> I don't understand this reply.
>
> Is nobody maintaining and familiar with the package in question?
Yes, but they have both been traveling, sick, and working long hours to pay
their bills. One of them also has their first child of 5 months.
>
> Or is somebody maintaining it, but not interested in the change?
Jeroen and I are indeed maintaining it, and we are interested in the change,
but Java(TM) 6 will be far more relevant when it is released. Perhaps you
could provide information that helps us understand the benefit you perceive
in packaging a beta version of the JRE/JDK from Sun right now; that may be
helpful in allowing us to determine if that needs to come before things that
are in other wishlist bugs that seem very important, like desktop integration
for Java(TM) WebStart(TM), menu integration for plugin, etc.
[...]
> ---
>
>
> As for placing "java" and "javac" on Linux distributions which invoke
> something else than Sun Java:
>
> Is this up for discussion in the first place?
Yes, it is. In addition to Sun JREs and JDKs, java-package also supports
JREs and JDKs from Blackdown and IBM. This may seem irrelevant to you, but
it would be far more pertinent if, for example, you ran Debian on a PowerPC
architecture.
Beyond java-package, in Debian at large, having free runtimes which support
the execution of programs written in the Java(TM) programming language is
most certainly up for discussion. Due to legacy conventions that are part
of Java's history, then name of a virtual machine executable, compiler, and
other things need to be preserved. What is _not_ up for discussion is the
mixing of binaries from a Sun JRE/JDK with anything else; that is a violation
of the Sun license. So, having a Sun java binary and an ecj javac, for
example, is not supported, encouraged, or endorsed by the Debian Java
Packaging project.
[...]
> Arnaud, I realize that you folks are working on Debian for free. But
> that for me is not an acceptable excuse for any kind of decision,
> because what you are doing may (and does) affect me and other people -
> even die-hard Debian users.
[...]
I agree that the volunteer element of our project is not an excuse for
anything, but I do believe that it is a factor that does inform and affect
decisions we make, including when to start supporting a beta of a non-free
product. It should also inform and affect any critique of how things have
been done in our effort to support our valued and appreciated Debian users
like yourself.
--
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered Linux User #368650
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature