Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> [sent to debian-java@lists.debian.org and ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com]
>
> For packaging we currently use a build dependency on a package which
> we did agree for packaging (java-gcj-compat-dev). Now with other more
> conformant Java implementations available, we might want to change to
> those implementations for building the packages in the archive. It
> looks like we won't have stuff like OpenJDK and IcedTea available for
> all architectures, but might be able to replace some parts with
> alternate implementations, e.g. replacing the VM with cacao for some
> architectures. This will result in different package names for
> different architectures. Therefore I'd like to introduce dependency
> packages which can be used / referenced across platforms. The
> packages itself are empty except for distro-jre-headless which
> contains a symbolic link
>
> /usr/lib/jvm/distro-java -> java-gcj
>
> These packages itself don't hold any other binaries and/or links to
> the referenced packages. We might need to discuss what we minimally
> expect from a package claiming to provide a certain version of a
> runtime. The "upstream" version of these packages corresponds to the
> provided runtime (use 1.5 or 5)? These packages are proposed to be
> built from the java-common package.
>
> Comments?
I like the idea. That is finally what we first discussed long time ago.
I have two issues: I don't like the name. What does people think about
"default-..." instead of "distro-..."? This makes it more clear. At
least I would not think of looking for a package with "distro" in name
when searching for a suitable default java runtime.
The other issue is also a longstanding issue: The names of the virtual
packages. Matthias, you proposal uses some virtual package names which
are not defined yet. When adding the packages to java-common we should
at the same time clean up our virtual package name madness. These two
things belong together in my opinion. I like that you used "...-sdk" and
not "...-compiler" which some packages use currently to detect a JDK.
And that is wrong.
Cheers,
Michael
Reply to: