Package: java-common Version: 0.14 Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As the policy maintainer I would like you to file this as a bug > to java-common too. It helps me to remember it. Done. Going into minimal snipping mode due to that. > 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? I want to avoid running non-free software as much as possible. As I said my only reason for installing java2-runtime was so I could sponsor a package. That does not mean I want to run it all the time due to Java daemon processes (which work with kaffe)! I guess at least some users are in a similar situation: they have java2 installed because something they can't avoid needs it, but want to use it only when absolutely necessary. It's the same with, say, acroread and xpdf: I normally use the latter with all documents, and only if it can't render a document correctly, resort to the non-free alternative. That was the "political" side. There is also technical reason: My freenet-unstable package is in main. I expect most of its users run it with kaffe. So to test it better, I want to use that, too, not some less-used alternative. > > 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. -- Robbe
