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

Re: I'd like to introduce myself

On 02/18/2013 04:23 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/02/2013 01:06, tony mancill a écrit :
>> So within Debian it isn't strictly necessary to list it as an
>> alternative, although we could revisit that if we find that there are
>> JREs commonly being used on Debian systems that only provide the
>> java7-runtime virtual package.
> Actually I was thinking about the JRE packages generated by
> java-package. Currently these packages provide only java-runtime and
> java2-runtime (plus the headless variations). I pushed a change to
> provide also java<n>-runtime depending on the version packaged. But that
> will not work with tomcat7, because the package doesn't provide
> java6-runtime expected by tomcat7.
> I'm not sure about the right solution. Either:
> 1. java-package generates JRE packages providing default-jre and
> default-jre-headless (I'm not sure why it doesn't already)
> 2. java-package generates JRE packages providing java<n>-runtime for
> every n between 2 and the version packaged.
> 3. Get the packages like tomcat7 to accept java7-runtime

I don't see any harm in option 3 - in fact, I can address it in the next
upload.  It won't have any effect on the current version of tomcat7 to
be released with wheezy though.

For (2), I see benefit in java-package generating a Provides line that
is similar to what is generated by the openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 packages.

And regarding (1), I'm not sure and need to give it some thought.
default-jre is an actual binary package (built from the java-source
package) that is supposed to bring in the distribution's "default" JRE
for whatever architecture you're running on.  It also provides whatever
java${version}-runtime(s) the "real" JRE it depends on provides.  You'll
also notice that the openjdk-${version}-jre packages don't provide

The Java Policy [1] is outdated in this area, so it's useful to have
this discussion.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: