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

To: Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org>
Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre.ledru@inria.fr>, debian-java@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
From: Andrew Overholt <overholt@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:15:48 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 20081028151548.GA31930@redhat.com>
Reply-to: Andrew Overholt <overholt@redhat.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20081028142038.GS7104@matthew.ath.cx>
References: <[🔎] 18694.52345.126127.112466@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <[🔎] 49481.15.195.185.81.1225197657.squirrel@my.bawue.net> <[🔎] 1225199967.14725.363.camel@korcula.inria.fr> <[🔎] 20081028142038.GS7104@matthew.ath.cx>

* Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> 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.

This goes against the Fedora and JPackage guidelines, FWIW.

Andrew

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
  - From: Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org>

References:
- java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch
  - From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
- Re: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch
  - From: "Eric Lavarde - Debian" <deb@zorglub.s.bawue.de>
- Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
  - From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre.ledru@inria.fr>
- Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
  - From: Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
Next by Date: Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
Previous by thread: Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
Next by thread: Re: Java Policy [Was: java bytecode / java runtime version mismatch]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread