Ok then. I wasn't too sure about it anyway. By the way since there are several different specifications (1.2, 1.3, 1.4) for java2 vm (and their base libraries), shouldn't there be some way to handle dependencies on specifications? For instance i have a project that needs 1.4. Right now i don't see any way to have that dependency. Maybe the java-virtual-machine virtual package should have a specification field so we could say something like depends: java-virtual-machine (>= 1.4). Maybe something similar for the base libraries. Ok there are no java2-vms available for debian officially but hopefully someday there will be, and not handling specification dependencies will cause some headaches to the users.
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 06:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote: > > > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the > > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared. > > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as > > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come > > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for > > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant > > vm/libraries. > > OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL > (dual licensed)[0]. The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license. Sun's JDK > is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1]. > > [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html > > [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html > > -- > - mdz > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
