Hi On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:01:56AM -0500, Jesse Stockall wrote: > 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.
Well then we have to have an alternative approach to this. javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are differences between versions there) javaX?-awt javaX?-swing Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes, java1-awt and java1-swing Is that a better proposal. I'll make that package if it is accepted. > > 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. I suggest that we enfoce that all classes and functions are declared but depricated do not have to be implemented... This way we do not have to have java1.1-swing and java1.2-swing and java1.4-swing (etc). I assume that it can be feasable to declare them at least? Regards, // Ola > Jesse > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- 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 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
