Re: [Summery] Re: Integrating the FOSDEM 06 Draft into the Java Policy
Niels Thykier wrote:
Eric Lavarde wrote:
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde <Eric@lavar.de> wrote:
one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime
< 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
Provides: java-runtime, java1-runtime, java2-runtime, java5-runtime
No java6-runtime, here...
OK, so what about keeping only java5-runtime and java6-runtime?
That is one of the changes I want to make myself; but not in this round!
Not sure I get this one?
This was basically what I discussed, mainly with Matt, on another
Personally I think java2-runtime has been used in cases where we
actually need a java5-runtime (or higher). I know java1-runtime is no
longer needed; but java2-runtime might still make sense for Ubuntu.
I recall being asked to not remove it right away last time I tried to
apply changes to the policy.
However, we should figure out what we should do about GCJ and the
virtual runtime javas. As noted, GCJ do not comply to the specs, but in
some cases it is the only (decent?) JVM we have available.
Should we redefine the meaning of javaX-runtime or should we have GCJ
stop providing java5-runtime?
Let me make another suggestion:
1. a package works with any JVM -> depend on default-jdk | java-runtime.
2. java-runtime means then "any Java runtime, whichever version and flavor",
2a. and the policy states that no new runtime can provide this virtual
package without Debian Java approval.
3. javaX-runtime means then "a Java runtime that passes the Java
Compatibility Tests for version X".
But I would agree that these changes could/should be pushed back after