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

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

On Fri Mar 26 17:37, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> They should build-depend on default-jdk and depend on default-jre | javaN-runtime
> I have some problems with this:
> 1. the policy states something like "javaX-runtime fulfills the Java X  
> specifications" (sorry, the patches are not reachable right now), but  
> gcj/gij specifically does not fulfill the Java X specifications (else  
> they wouldn't be incompatible with sun's Java resp. openjdk).

Well, that's not a useful definition for them in that case and should probably
be changed (in a future patch to policy)

> 2. On one side, in order to depend on default-j, programs and libraries  
> must work both with openjdk and gcj, such programs/libraries should then  
> depend on default-j, and only such programs/libraries can depend on  
> javaX-runtime. The result is that javaX-runtime and default-jre are more  
> or less interchangeable, and only confuse people (well, me at least).

No, default-jre is a concrete package pointing to specifically one JRE on a
given platform.  javaX-runtime is a virtual package provided by mane packages.
Depending on default-jre says "I must have the default for this platform".
Depending on default-jre | javaX-runtime says "I can work with any JRE, but if
you don't already have one, please give me the default".

> 3. gcj's versioning doesn't follow Java's versioning (X), so that each  
> new version of gcj is just a more and more complete version of any X  
> version of Java.
> Example: package MyJavaProgram depends on gcj-jre (>= 4.4) |  
> javaX-runtime because it doesn't work with gcj 4.3. But user already has  
> gcj-jre=4.3, which also provides javaX-runtime --> failure.

Then you want Conflicts: gcj-jre (<< 4.4)

> 4. On the other hand, openjdk and sun's java are really interchangeable  
> and would justify a javaX-runtime, as their own versioning/naming  
> follows the X schema.
> Bottom-line, I would ask to either suppress javaX-runtime all together  
> as being useless or even dangerous (as per point 3), or (my preferred)  
> to reserve it for runtime environments which have passed the Java  
> Compatibility Tests.

Personally now that we have openjdk I think we should drop Sun's JRE, at which
point you don't need a virtual package for them.

You _do_ need something for "Will work with whichever of openjdk/sun/gcj
happens to be installed", which is what javaX-runtime currently provides. The
versioning is mainly to ensure you have something which can read the classfile
version you compiled to. 

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: