On 02/19/2013 12:58 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/02/2013 08:08, tony mancill a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> The only issue with option 3 is that every 2 years when a new version of
> Java is released, all packages have to be updated to accept
> java<n+1>-runtime. That seems a bit awkward.
>
> That brings another option:
>
> 4. Get dpkg to support versions on the Provides field, and then update
> the packages once and for all to declare a unique dependency on
> java-runtime (>= n)
That might be a longer path. Going back to option 2, if the JRE
packages provide the appropriate java${version}-runtime and the binary
packages depend on that, there isn't any need for periodic updates.
>> 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.
>
> I'll try to do that, or at least add java<n-1>-runtime and
> java<n-2>-runtime to the list.
>
>
>> The Java Policy [1] is outdated in this area, so it's useful to have
>> this discussion.
>
> What is the process to get the policy updated?
That is a good question - one that I don't know the answer to. Niels
may care to comment (or I may badger him about it via private email once
the release is done).
Cheers,
tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature