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

Java Policy [was: 'knopflerfish-osgi' uploaded to mentors.debian.net]


subject change to reflect topic change...

Niels Thykier wrote:
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.
Nobody is guilty, and thanks for taking my ranting in a constructive manner.

I didn't know about this page. How do you want to get comments (should I have some after reading)? Would OpenDoc with tracked changes be OK? I only went very quickly through it, and I got the impression that it's already slightly outdated, e.g. it doesn't seem to take OpenJDK into consideration.

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.
Agreed, but I did put openjdk first, Sun's Java is only 2nd; my understanding from former discussions is that it doesn't disqualify from being in main (or else any software also running on Windows could be disqualified ;-) ).

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

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.
I don't think we can call Java private; many Java packages are not (and don't need to be) maintained by the Java Maintainer Group. But that's only my opinion, "privat*" is only used once within the Debian Policy.

Thanks for your effort, it would really be great to have an updated Java Policy in the next Debian,

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Java/Draft


Reply to: