Re: Help needed on the Java policy
Eric Lavarde writes:
> Hi everybody,
> thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
> Let me try to suggest one.
> POINT 1:
> I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
> - the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
> tested by the packager, and for which he's ready to stand up and make it
> work (the supported runtimes).
> - if a bug report is related to another java runtime and the bug can't
> be reproduced under the "supported" runtimes, the maintainer may
> reassign the bug report to the "faulty" runtime package.
> If there is a consensus on this one, I'll file a patch on java-common.
these packages having a last alternative dependency on '| java2-runtime'
> POINT 2:
> I will duplicate the bug I got on FreeMind in 4 and forward them as follows:
> 1. to sun-java5-jre and sun-java6-jre because they miss the X-library
> dependencies, it can't be that my package has to depend on those in
> order to work (how should I know which ones are required?).
for now, see the Recommends of that package.
> 2. to gij because it provides java2-runtime but doesn't provide the AWT
> 3. to gij again because, even after installation of libgcj9-0-awt,
> FreeMind doesn't work properly with it.
maybe. please file an upstream report, then file a bug report in
debian and mark it as forwarded.
Maybe having the sun-java in debian is a mistake. It misleads
people (even maintainers like you) to just use these, and not care
about the free java stack. Keep in mind that there's only a
handful of people involved in java packaging in debian (sorry if I
did miss someone).