On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:55:22AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: > Hi
There are several reasons why they are split. 1) some compilers do not require a jvm. 2) Some things compile the classes to bytecode the will not need the jvm. This is why it is very explictly written in the java policy that the java-virtual-machine should be suggested for java libraries. If java[12]-runtime is just a superset of java-virtual-machine there is no reason for having such an explict thing for libraries in the policy and you will always need to install a jvm even if you might not need it. > Ok, I should stop reading mail at 3am... :) > >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon> I think the autobuilder argument is valid. Autobuilders > Simon> need the classes, but not the VM. If at all, you can make > Simon> the VMs depend on the core classes, so people can depend on > Simon> the core classes for compiling and a vm for execution. > > Yes, if the jvm depended on the -runtime that would address half the > depndency issue but that's putting the cart before the horse. Having > java-compiler depend on java1-runtime might help but in at least two > cases that wouyld still result in a jvm being installed so why > complicate things? Because some people like to describe complicated things in a complex way? :) Regards, // Ola > -- > Stephen > > "If I claimed I was emporer just cause some moistened bint lobbed a > scimitar at me they'd put me away" -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
