[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 
> library.


> 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[56] 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).


Reply to: