According to Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well there seems to be some vauge statements in the policy. I assumed > that blackdown should present both java1-runtime _and_ java2-runtime > becuse it can fulfill both runtime requirements (in reasonable way).
I agree that the Blackdown Java2 packages would benefit from providing both java1-runtime and java2-runtime, but I may I still repeat the latter part of my original bug report and disagree on that this bug belongs to java-common: > > Also from <URL:http://xml.apache.org/batik/install.html> I gather that > > Batik needs JVM compatible with Java 1.3 or newer to run, thus the > > "java1-runtime" propably should be changed into "java2-runtime" as I > > cannot think any Java 1.3 compatible JVM, which would not go under > > Java2-label. I mean, if Batik fails to run with older JVMs (which when packaged for Debian only provide java1-runtime) shouldn't that mean that the package libbatik-java should not depend on java1-runtime, but instead require java2-runtime? -- * H e i k k i K a n t o l a * | Report all instances that you see IRC: Hezu | of spam abuse. Civilized people need E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | to treat their meat products with WWW: <URL:http://www.iki.fi/hezu/>| more respect :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
