On 05/26/2015 11:49 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2015-05-27 08:09, tony mancill wrote: [...] >> However, couldn't we use versioned build-deps on default-jdk + the >> virtual runtime dependency for the binary package to accomplish the same >> effect? For any software that requires Java7, we would build-dep on >> default-jdk (>=2:1.7~) and require java7-runtime for the resulting >> binary package. (The versioned build-dep has already been used in some >> cases to excluce gcj-jdks.) >> > > STOP! Versioned dependencies on default-java for pulling a particular > Java version IS A BAD IDEA! > > We have twice now added an epoch to default-jdk et al, because we had to > revert the default java on several architectures. So far it has always > been openjdk -> gcj, but it could just as well be openjdk-8 to openjdk-7 > next time. > As soon as the epoch is bumped, you get the old java version while the > dependency is still satisfied! Ah yes, thanks for pointing this out. This seems like a generally serious unfortunate consequence of epochs. > To be honest, I mostly of the belief that using the java major version > as a part of the version for default-jdk et al. is a misfeature. It > appears to trick people into believing it is useful method to ensure a > minimum java version, only to be surprised by an "oops, we have to > revert to gcj and have to bump the epoch". > >> For Java8, the pattern would be the same, and it won't be long before >> we'll have to accommodate sources that *require* Java8. The versioned >> dependency would allow us to differentiate between source packages that >> require 8 (or 9) and those that will still build with Java 7, etc. >> > > No, I am not convinced it will (as per above). Perhaps we should have a > look at versioned provides as an alternative. I didn't propose this because I thought we couldn't use a versioned dependency on a virtual package, but it appears that dpkg 1.17.11 provides some support. I'll move future discussion to debian-java, since as Markus pointed out, this bug report is regarding the lintian warning. Thank you, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature