--- Begin Message ---
- To: debian-java@lists.debian.org, submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: policy proposal: java2 alternative
- From: Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at>
- Date: 31 Aug 2002 13:19:01 +0200
- Message-id: <87vg5rmg2i.fsf@orcus.priv.at>
- In-reply-to: <20020826084526.GC18563@chrystal.opal.dhs.org>
- References: <873ctvhrun.fsf@orcus.priv.at> <20020826084526.GC18563@chrystal.opal.dhs.org>
Package: java-common
Version: 0.14
Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:
> As the policy maintainer I would like you to file this as a bug
> to java-common too. It helps me to remember it.
Done. Going into minimal snipping mode due to that.
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > I'm sponsoring a (contrib) package that depends on
> > java2-runtime. I (as a user of the package) will have to install the
> > Blackdown VM to make it work, but I still want other java programs to
> > use Kaffe because it's free. Pointing the "java" alternative to Kaffe
> > will break the package, though ...
>
> True. But if you already have installed the non-free version why use
> the free one? Do you think it is better/faster or?
I want to avoid running non-free software as much as possible. As I
said my only reason for installing java2-runtime was so I could
sponsor a package. That does not mean I want to run it all the time
due to Java daemon processes (which work with kaffe)! I guess at least
some users are in a similar situation: they have java2 installed
because something they can't avoid needs it, but want to use it only
when absolutely necessary.
It's the same with, say, acroread and xpdf: I normally use the latter
with all documents, and only if it can't render a document correctly,
resort to the non-free alternative.
That was the "political" side. There is also technical reason: My
freenet-unstable package is in main. I expect most of its users run it
with kaffe. So to test it better, I want to use that, too, not some
less-used alternative.
> > So I propose the following addition to java-policy: Providers of
> > "java2-runtime" must also provide a "java2" alternative. Packages
> > depending on "java2-runtime" can use this to be sure to get a
> > java2-compliant environment. This allows for different defaults for
> > java1 and java2 environments.
>
> What do other people think about this solution?
>
> > The same could apply to "java2-compiler" and "javac2", but I'm not
> > sure if that is too useful (what *are* the differences between
> > java1-compiler and java2-compiler, exactly?).
>
> Well the java2* do not break as much. I have not find much other
> differences.
--
Robbe
--- End Message ---