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

Re: I'd like to introduce myself

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 The Java Policy [1] is outdated in this area, so it's useful to have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


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: