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

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

On Sunday 28 March 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi
> I just had a conversation with Damien Raude-Morvan and Matthew Johnson
> about the strict dependencies between javadoc packages. We considered
> lowering the requirement from a Depends to a Recommends.
> The rationale is that the javadoc is functional even without the docs it
> links too and it allows users to use the "--without-recommends" or
> "--no-install-recommends" to avoid having to install a lot of javadocs
> they are not interested in.
> I will do this change on Tuesday, provided no one objects to this.

Finished reading the patches, the bug reports and the e-mails. I like the idea 
of putting these very old bug reports behind us. Moving in small patches seems 
also very good as the dependency issues of different JREs, JVMs, SDK, etc will 
be a tough issue to agree upon (I for once find the idea of shipping only one 
JRE to be a mistake).

Aside from the fact that another pair of eyes went through the whole thing, I 
found a typo:

if you search the FOSDEM patch for the following string:

"and shipped in a separately from the original jar file"

you can fix it (most probably something like "and shipped separately from the 
original jar file").

Good work!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: