Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> [...]
>> with default-jdk and have default-jre as the first alternative.
>> If it
>> _does_ only work with openjdk then you should not depend on |
>> java2-runtime. In any case you don't need to depend on |
>> sun-java5-jre |
>> sun-java6-jre given that they provide java2-runtime
> OK, if there is one thing that goes really on my nerves since I've
> started to package Java stuff for Debian, it is this f*ing Java Policy.
>
Agreed, it has been on my TODO list for a while to take over the task of
updating of the policy. As you have noticed, the policy is very outdated.
> [...]
> And I know the answer, so don't take it personally: because the Java
> Policy doesn't reflect the lived reality! Fine, but then update the Java
> Policy! Since years have different people said that they will do it, and
> nothing ever happened.
>
Yes, I am guilty here. On a related note, does anyone know if the draft
[1] has been ratified or it is just a "proposed" change? If it is the
latter then lets get (the parts of) it (we want) approved so I can
integrate them.
> My answer to this is to respect the policy but to put Sun's JRE in front
> to avoid as much as possible incompatible dependencies.
>
If you put a non-free JVM first in the alternatives your package must go
into contrib. It is better to put default-{jre,jdk} or openjdk first and
keep the package in main.
> Speaking of policy, the virtual package lists states: "Packages MUST NOT
> use virtual package names (except privately, amongst
> a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and
> appear in this list."
> I don't think that the Java packages can be called private but we have
> java-runtime, java5-runtime, java6-runtime (plus headless variants). Not
> forgetting java-sdk, java2-compiler, java2-sdk, java5-sdk, java6-sdk.
> And let us also not forget the gcj/gij stuff, which provides the above
> inofficial virtual packages without actually being fully compatible with
> Java.
>
Truly we got quite a few virtual packages not on that list [2] (btw
java2-compiler is present on the list). The question is whether this
counts as "private amongst a cooperating group of packages".
I wonder if it is possible for us to get permissions to create and use
virtual packages prefixed javaX- without needing to bother the rest of
Debian about it.
> So, who is not respecting the policy here?
>
> Thanks, Eric
>
>
~Niels
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Java/Draft
[2]
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature