Re: RFS: libxp-java : XML 1.0 parser for Java
W liście z sob, 29-05-2004, godz. 14:22, Arnaud Vandyck pisze:
> Nicolas Duboc <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:00:23PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >> Nicolas Duboc <email@example.com> writes:
> >> Why sablevm and gij aren't alternatives for java1-runtime? (if there is
> >> no reason, can I add them as alternatives?
> > I have added kaffe on the Depend line because of the lintian warning
> > "virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends" .
> > I don't think adding other alternatives is useful. But if I'm wrong,
> > I will add it, of course.
> >  http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tvirtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends.html
> I agree. I tend to add other alternatives but it's not necessary.
> I'll upload your package.
> If someone think it's useful, file a wishlist bug against libxp-java.
Actually, especially in case of packages that work with free java
environments I think it IS useful.
"I have chosen kaffe since I know the package perfectly works with kaffe
VM and libraries. It also works with sablevm (it seems to not work on
gij but I don't know yet why)."
This is IMO exactly the kind of informations you want to give to a user
by the Depends: alternatives. In this case you would put something
Depends: kaffe | sablevm | java1-runtime
When I see an entry like that, I expect that the maintainer tested this
package with kaffe and sablevm jvms so if the package doesn't work w/
one of these anymore - it's a regression. In such case, as a JVM
mantainer I'd want to hear about this regression. And I guess it might
also be important for the maintainer of the package in question, as
strange things happen sometime, like latest gjdoc, which works *only*
with kaffe, while it used to work w/ others (but Arnaud handled it the
On the other hand, as a user, I treat putting names of alternative
packages into Depends field as an important information, which will help
me in case I had troubles running this software. Maybe I should switch
to different JVM to run this app?
Summarizing: in both cases - for an enduser and for jvm maintainer
it is *worth* to have Depends: field describing what JVMs are expected
So please, include this information if you can,
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
PS: And, obviously, if it hasn't been tested and confirmed that
a package works with some JVM, such JVM should not be explicitely listed
in the Depends: field.
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
SableVM - LGPLed JVM http://www.sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!? http://devel.sablevm.org/wiki/WhySableVM