On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> > j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and
> > java2-virtual-machine.
>
> *nod*. I agree.
>
> > This at least means that even though you don't have dependencies for
> > virtual packages, you still have a way of requiring Java2. But OTOH
> > j2sdk1.3 will still satisfy the less stringent requirement of "any java",
> > i.e. java-virtual-machine.
>
> Yep. We're on the same level here.
>
> Ok, so what happens now ? This kind of proposal is something that
> should really be added to the java-policy as it concerns the base
> components of a java system. How does this happen (assuming it's
> accepted) ?
>
> Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea... i have been reading this discussion, and
packaged Jmol for Debian as a non-maintainer (with comments from some Debian
people) i recognize the problem as Jmol needs J2 as well...
I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
java2-virtual-machine concept...
> If there are no major hassles, then mid next week I'll send in a more
> formal proposal for a java2-virtual-machine concept, which can be
> further discussed if needed. ITP's, etc, could then follow.
>
> How does that sound ?
Go for it!
BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy? Most Debian
developers do not know about Java enough to decide on these things...
Egon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
