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

[Eric Lavarde <deb@zorglub.s.bawue.de>]

Hi,

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
> > > > where X
> > > > < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
> > > > java6?
> > > Package: gcj-4.4-jre
> > > Provides: java-runtime, java1-runtime, java2-runtime, java5-runtime
> > >
> > >   No java6-runtime, here...
> > >
> > >       Vincent
> > OK, so what about keeping only java5-runtime and java6-runtime?
> >
> > Eric
>
> That is one of the changes I want to make myself; but not in this round!
Not sure I get this one?

> 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?
This was basically what I discussed, mainly with Matt, on another 
sub-thread.

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 
squeeze release.

Eric