On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote: > > > > What are we doing about the java2 dependency issue? There was a long > > > thread about this recently and (I believe) general consensus was that > > > there should be: > > > > > > Provides: java2-virtual-machine (or java2-runtime?) > > > Provides: java2-compiler > > > > Well. I have to ask one thing (before adding such things to the > > policy). Have the virtual machine changed (in any strange way) or > > is it just the runtime environment that really have changed. I skip > > all performance parts and just focus on compatibility. > > Not quite sure I understand the question here; are you asking whether the > JVM specs have changed along with the API?
Yes that is my question. > I'm not sure how this affects the discussion either way; the reason for > providing java2-* packages is that there is such a vast API compatibility > gap between it and java 1.1/1.0. If the JVM specs change as well, then > shouldn't this make such virtual packages all the more necessary? Well it changes in this way. * If the jvm specs have not changed we should have these virtual packages to depend on: java-virtual-machine java1-runtime java2-runtime * If the jvm specs have changed we should have these virtual packages to depend on: java1-virtual-machine java2-virtual-machine and maybe java1-runtime and maybe java2-runtime Maybe I have forgot something but that is the basic idea. Regards, // Ola > I have a strange feeling I've missed your point entirely. > > Ben. > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING | | +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
