Re: [PROPOSAL] 3. RfD on new debian java policy

[Daniel Bonniot]

I will neither propose nor agree with a debian java policy, which will
ignore this facts and make out users patch debian packages to get this
working.
       

I don't see the point of making a policy that says that packages must
work with some non-packaged non-free programs. It would be nice if they
do, but requiring it is a lot to ask of a packager.
     

ot of the box, they work with the VMs, which are stated in the
readme/webpage. So we can assume that a package will work with one of
the 'unfree interface' versions. If we get that for free, I don't se
ethe point in denying this fact to the user.
   

If a maintainer doesn't want to get his hands dirty by installing a prorpietary
VM 

[snip]

then you propose that he should tell his users that the software will work
with some non-free VM without being able to test it. I think that's dubious
practice, really, and if I was a debian package maintainer, I wouldn't like to
be forced by a policy to make claims that I can't verify.
Isn't it fine if another person testifies that the package works with 
this-or-that JVM? I suppose this already happens with specific 
architectures or hardware.
So if a package works with a JVM not in its depends, one can file a 
(wishlist?) bug againt it.

Maybe the policy could say "A package must (should?) depend on the 
disjunction of all JVMs with which it has been tested succesfully". That 
does not force the packager to use any non-free program, but gives 
strength to bug reports to include another VM.

Daniel



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]