Re: Policy change proposal, Re: Bug#176628: sablevm: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:06:37PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
>
> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
> (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
This is not a bad proposal at all. It would actually make some things easier.
What do other people say about this?
They actually do not need the number in them. java-awt-runtime should
be ok as there is no (correct?) difference between java1 and java2 when it
comes to awt.
Same applies to swing, or?
What do people think about this proposal?
> This way we can have kaffe provides java1-runtime, java1-awt-runtime and
> sablevm provides java1-runtime (without the awt virtual package). This
> way non-GUI apps can depend on java1-runtime and be installed against a
> multitude of free JVMs, whereas GUI apps can restrict their dependencies
> to those JVMs that support AWT/Swing.
>
> Though of course there's no guarantee that /usr/bin/java actually points
> to the AWT-capable JVM if you have several JVMs installed. Though this is
> a slightly different issue.
Yes, that is another issue. :)
Regards,
// Ola
> b.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: