On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:19:01PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > 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.
Thanks. > > 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 Well I use java2 too. :) > 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. I understand. > > > 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. Regards, // Ola > -- > Robbe > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- 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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
