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

Bug#551300: java-common: policy mandates java?-runtime even for headless packages



brian m. carlson wrote:
> Package: java-common
> Version: 0.33
> Severity: normal
> 
> The Debian Java Policy, which is present in this package, states (§2.3):
> 
>   Programs must depend on java-virtual-machine and the needed runtime
>   environment (java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime).
> 
> (Similar text is present in §2.1 and §2.2.)
> 
> This is problematic, because this pulls in a huge number of dependencies
> that are unneeded for packages that run headless.  For openjdk-6, which
> is the default runtime on amd64, this involves the installation of the
> entirety of GTK and its associated libraries, which are not needed on
> machines that have neither a monitor nor an X server, such as servers.
> 
> Please fix the policy so that it does not mandate the installation of a
> full JRE when a headless JRE would suffice.  This is priority normal
> because it requires every Java program or library to depend on lots of
> code that has no place on a server.
> 
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: squeeze/sid
>   APT prefers unstable
>   APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> 
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> 
> java-common depends on no packages.
> 
> java-common recommends no packages.
> 
> Versions of packages java-common suggests:
> ii  default-jre                   1.6-33     Standard Java or Java compatible R
> ii  equivs                        2.0.7-0.1  Circumvent Debian package dependen
> 
> -- no debconf information
> 

Hi Brian

We are working on updating the policy to better fit the current times.
If you look at packages such libgnujmi-java [1], we are already
"extending" the interpretation of this particularly cause to allow the
headless versions.

If you are interested, you can see a draft of the coming policy here[2].
Though there will be changes in that draft based on this feedback [3].

~Niels
[1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/libgnujmi-java
[2] http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/policy/
[3]
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg698708.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: