Re: Help needed on the Java policy
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
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'
Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant.
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.
no.
OK, Why no and why is "Recommends" sufficient? If I may interpret your
answer, it's because you don't want to pull X-stuff when you only want
to have a Java runtime for your server.
In this case, the proposal from Andrew Vaughan to have a javaN-runtime
and a javaN-runtime-nox would make much sense, wouldn't it?
There would then be a sun-javaN-jre and a sun-javaN-jre-nox (for
example), and the same for gij/gcj/compat...
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.
<rant>
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).
</rant>
I do not agree, I do care, else I wouldn't suggest the above changes to
the Java policy, but if my package doesn't work with gij, it just
doesn't work, and I still expect that I get a workable solution for my
package, with a finite amount of complexity.
<rant type="my turn">
I'm trying to be constructive, but if it comes down to "we only care
about free java and server apps", then I just remove java2-runtime from
my dependencies and end of the discussion.
</rant>
Eric
Matthias
[1]http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=436206
Reply to: