Eric Lavarde wrote: > Vincent Fourmond wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde <e...@lavar.de> wrote: >>> one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime >>> where X >>> < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than >>> java6? >> >> Package: gcj-4.4-jre >> Provides: java-runtime, java1-runtime, java2-runtime, java5-runtime >> >> No java6-runtime, here... >> >> Vincent >> > OK, so what about keeping only java5-runtime and java6-runtime? > > Eric > >
That is one of the changes I want to make myself; but not in this round! Personally I think java2-runtime has been used in cases where we actually need a java5-runtime (or higher). I know java1-runtime is no longer needed; but java2-runtime might still make sense for Ubuntu. I recall being asked to not remove it right away last time I tried to apply changes to the policy. However, we should figure out what we should do about GCJ and the virtual runtime javas. As noted, GCJ do not comply to the specs, but in some cases it is the only (decent?) JVM we have available. Should we redefine the meaning of javaX-runtime or should we have GCJ stop providing java5-runtime? ~Niels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
