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

Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]

On Tue Oct 28 14:19, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
> > should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
> > features?
> It is a good idea. Some information are missing in the current Java
> Policy.
> A few others things:
> * use java-wrappers should be recommended when it is possible

or jarwrapper, which should Just Work in all simple cases. (depend on
jarwrapper, set +x on jar. The former will be done for you if you use
javahelper and jh_depends)

> * having OpenJDK in Debian changes things
> I am not sure how hard it would be but lintian should be updated to
> handle Java libraries/applications. 
> For now, I have the feeling that Lintian not doing much with Java.

First though I think we need to change how we handle Java libraries. We
currently have no clear way to handle API/ABI changes in upstream
libraries like C libraries would do. I'm also still convinced we need to
mandate the use of Class-Path: entries in manifests to avoid transitions
in rdeps when you update your dependencies.

When any decision on how to handle these are made, I'm happy to update
javahelper to make it easier to package these things.

I need to add support for getting the classfile version out of the jars
and depend on the correct version of javaX-runtime as the alternate
dependency automatically.

It would also be good to add cdbs support, since most java packagers
seem to use that, but I could do with some help on that, since I don't
understand cdbs or how to add things to it.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: