On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or > > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions. > > > > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding), > > I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime > > (and possibly java2-swing-runtime). > > This is not a bad proposal at all. It would actually make some things easier. >
Maybe for packagers, but not for users. > What do other people say about this? > Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and functioning VM should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime. For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a Java VM, Debian should not pretend that JDK 1.1 didn't include AWT. If there is a desire to have the incomplete VM's provide something, then make it java1-nogui-runtime, or java1-noawt-runtime. Someone who is not familiar with Debian's Java policy (and this email thread) would expect (and rightly so) that a package that provides java1-runtime would be able to support any code written for Sun's JDK 1.1. > They actually do not need the number in them. java-awt-runtime should > be ok as there is no (correct?) difference between java1 and java2 when it > comes to awt. > There are plenty of differences between versions of AWT, java.awt.Font for example. > Same applies to swing, or? Same for Swing, JDK 1.2.2 Swing is not the same as JDK 1.4 Swing. Jesse
