Re: RFS: UPDATE: libbasicplayer-java 3.0-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:43:22PM -0500, Varun Hiremath wrote:
>> Ahmed, thanks for fixing the package. But, I think library packages
>> should at least depend on the -jre-headless package. AFAIK, that has
>> been the general practice with other library packages in Debian.
> ---end quoted text---
> I've just checked, some java library packages indeed do depend on
> -jre-headless, and some do not depend on any jre package at all.
> Anyways, if I recall correctly, Matthew Johnson once told me (when we
> were discussing a patch for jh_depends) that java libraries aren't
> supposed to depend on any jre, it is the java apps.
It seems like it could depend on the library package. If it's strictly a
library, meaning it doesn't have any main() methods lurking about that are
useful to users, then the guideline should be not to depend on a JRE package. I
suppose there are library packages out there that contain classes you might want
to invoke directly with a JRE, but I imagine they would the exception. (And in
any event, I think this would be a corner case - i.e. how often would a user or
developer be loading library packages without having a JRE installed?)
So a general rule of not depending on a JRE package seems like a good approach.
It's one less thing that has to change if the virtual JRE package name changes,
and that's across all of the library packages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----