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

Re: [Summery] Re: Integrating the FOSDEM 06 Draft into the Java Policy

Hi Niels,

I have some problems to understand the resulting document, not knowing what the baseline is, but after reading through the patches, I think that the new policy doesn't address the main problem which is the fact that we have 2 incompatible runtime (and compiling/building) environments, classpath/gcj/gij on one side, and openjdk/sun-java on the other side. In the words of [1], chapter "virtual packages", classpath-jre/jdk (cp-j) vs. java-jre/jdk (java-j). Note: the denomination free vs. non-free is not correct anymore because openjdk is in the 2nd section, but that's another story.

But, from your patches, I understand that javaX-runtime survives and that we add default-jre/jdk (default-j) into the picture, which, depending on the platform, provides either cp-j or java-j, because they pull gcj-j or openjdk-j.

Now we have different kind of programs and libraries:

A. ones which work with both cp-j and java-j => those ones can and should/must (build-)depend on default-j (easy).

B. ones which work only with cp-j => those can't depend on default-j, should they (build-)depend on gcj-j | some virtual package (which one)?

C. ones which work only with java-j => those can't depend on default-j, should they (build-)depend on openjdk-j | sun-j | some virtual package (which one)?

D. ones which work with both cp-j and java-j, but also provide -gcj packages (requiring gcj-j) => do they fall in case A or case B? Or is there a case D?

As this is the point where I lost my nerves ;-), I think that it's important to have a solution.

Less important: it should be precised that a program/library depending on a certain javaX-runtime must make sure that the compilation happens with the -source/-target values corresponding to this X.

Even less important, a typo in the GCJ patch:

A request for permission to add gcj should packages should convince the Java Team that [...]
(the "should packages" is probably too much)

Participating to my confusion: I'm not sure where in the history of the java-policy does [2] fit!?

Thanks, Eric

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Java/Draft
[2] http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/policy/debian-java-policy/

Niels Thykier wrote:
I will just give a quick summery, in case you lost the overview of this

Currently there are three patches active:
 * p1_trival_changes.patch
 * p2_fosdem06_r3.patch
 * p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch

I just noticed that my email client have behaved weirdly when I sent the
last two and have made all three patches (plus the
p2_fosdem_r2-r3.interdiff) available via [1].

The current status is that I will apply p1_trival_changes.patch and
p2_fosdem06_r3.patch tomorrow. I am currently waiting for feedback on

If I get no feedback on p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch before Monday I will
assume all parties involved are satisfied and will apply it then.


[1] http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/policy/

Reply to: