Hi Niels,
I have some problems to understand the resulting document, not knowing
what the baseline is, but after reading through the patches, I think
that the new policy doesn't address the main problem which is the fact
that we have 2 incompatible runtime (and compiling/building)
environments, classpath/gcj/gij on one side, and openjdk/sun-java on the
other side.
In the words of [1], chapter "virtual packages", classpath-jre/jdk
(cp-j) vs. java-jre/jdk (java-j).
Note: the denomination free vs. non-free is not correct anymore because
openjdk is in the 2nd section, but that's another story.
But, from your patches, I understand that javaX-runtime survives and
that we add default-jre/jdk (default-j) into the picture, which,
depending on the platform, provides either cp-j or java-j, because they
pull gcj-j or openjdk-j.
Now we have different kind of programs and libraries:
A. ones which work with both cp-j and java-j => those ones can and
should/must (build-)depend on default-j (easy).
B. ones which work only with cp-j => those can't depend on default-j,
should they (build-)depend on gcj-j | some virtual package (which one)?
C. ones which work only with java-j => those can't depend on default-j,
should they (build-)depend on openjdk-j | sun-j | some virtual package
(which one)?
D. ones which work with both cp-j and java-j, but also provide -gcj
packages (requiring gcj-j) => do they fall in case A or case B? Or is
there a case D?
As this is the point where I lost my nerves ;-), I think that it's
important to have a solution.
Less important: it should be precised that a program/library depending
on a certain javaX-runtime must make sure that the compilation happens
with the -source/-target values corresponding to this X.
Even less important, a typo in the GCJ patch:
A request for permission to add gcj should packages should convince the
Java Team that [...]
(the "should packages" is probably too much)
Participating to my confusion: I'm not sure where in the history of the
java-policy does [2] fit!?
Thanks, Eric
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Java/Draft
[2] http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/policy/debian-java-policy/
Niels Thykier wrote:
I will just give a quick summery, in case you lost the overview of this
debate.
Currently there are three patches active:
* p1_trival_changes.patch
* p2_fosdem06_r3.patch
* p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch
I just noticed that my email client have behaved weirdly when I sent the
last two and have made all three patches (plus the
p2_fosdem_r2-r3.interdiff) available via [1].
The current status is that I will apply p1_trival_changes.patch and
p2_fosdem06_r3.patch tomorrow. I am currently waiting for feedback on
p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch.
If I get no feedback on p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch before Monday I will
assume all parties involved are satisfied and will apply it then.
~Niels
[1] http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s072425/debian/policy/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bac738a.9070...@zorglub.s.bawue.de
