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
