Hi As the policy maintainer I would like you to file this as a bug to java-common too. It helps me to remember it.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > I'm sponsoring a (contrib) package that depends on > java2-runtime. I (as a user of the package) will have to install the > Blackdown VM to make it work, but I still want other java programs to > use Kaffe because it's free. Pointing the "java" alternative to Kaffe > will break the package, though ... True. But if you already have installed the non-free version why use the free one? Do you think it is better/faster or? > So I propose the following addition to java-policy: Providers of > "java2-runtime" must also provide a "java2" alternative. Packages > depending on "java2-runtime" can use this to be sure to get a > java2-compliant environment. This allows for different defaults for > java1 and java2 environments. What do other people think about this solution? > The same could apply to "java2-compiler" and "javac2", but I'm not > sure if that is too useful (what *are* the differences between > java1-compiler and java2-compiler, exactly?). Well the java2* do not break as much. I have not find much other differences. In the same thread as this mail I saw a question about how much it is to fix before it can be in a non-proposed state. Well... Much can be done but the main reason why it is not a true policy is that last time I tried there was a lot of things that people have not agreed upon. Also it was just before the release of woody so no policy additions was possible. Regards, // Ola > -- > Robbe -- --------------------- 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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
