Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine whether
> >>> java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
> >>
> >> Hi Bill,
> >>
> >> Here is the definition of these packages:
> >>
> >> java5-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 5
> >> java6-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 6
> >> java7-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 7
> >> java8-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 8
> >> java9-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 9
> >> java5-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
> >> version 5
> >> java6-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
> >> version 6
> >> java7-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
> >> version 7
> >> java8-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
> >> version 8
> >> java9-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
> >> version 9
> >>
> >> java1-runtime and java2-runtime are still provided by gcj-jre and
> >> openjdk-{6,7,8} but they are obsolete. We remove them from the
> >> dependencies as we update the packages.
> >>
> >> java9-runtime isn't used yet but is likely to appear in Jessie+1,
> >> feel free to remove it if you prefer keeping only the packages currently
> >> used.
> >
> > Fine! Could you get someone from the Java team double check and second this ?
>
> Hello Bill,
>
> Seconded. java5 is our minimum supported runtime (I believe since
> squeeze), so I don't see any need for java1 or java2 as virtual package
> names.
>
> I have a preference for "non-graphical" over "non graphical" in the
> description of the -headless variants, but it appears that both usages
> are common.
OK, so I offer the following patch. Is it fine ?
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644
--- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
+++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
@@ -161,8 +161,16 @@ Graphics and MultiMedia
Java and virtual machines
-------------------------
- java1-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 1
- java2-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 2
+ java5-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 5
+ java6-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 6
+ java7-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 7
+ java8-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 8
+ java9-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 9
+ java5-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 5
+ java6-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 6
+ java7-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 7
+ java8-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 8
+ java9-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 9
Scheme and interpreters
-------------------------
@@ -329,3 +337,7 @@ Bill Allombert:
Charles Plessy:
03 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-encoder
17 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-decoder
+
+Bill Allombert:
+ 16 Jul 2014 Added java{5,6,7,8,9}-runtime{,-headless}
+ Removed java1-runtime, java2-runtime
Reply to: