Re: Java policy change proposal: runtime/compiler selection

2006-08-23 Thread Tom Marble
Matthias Klose wrote: > Tom Marble writes: >> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: >>> Currently, there is update-java-alternatives in java-common to manage >>> the various java commands and how they refer to which implementation. >>> People can however ignore it and update-alternatives themselves, things

Re: Java policy change proposal: runtime/compiler selection

2006-08-23 Thread Matthias Klose
Tom Marble writes: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > Currently, there is update-java-alternatives in java-common to manage > > the various java commands and how they refer to which implementation. > > People can however ignore it and update-alternatives themselves, things > > can get out-of-sync,

Re: Java policy change proposal: runtime/compiler selection

2006-08-21 Thread Tom Marble
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Currently, there is update-java-alternatives in java-common to manage > the various java commands and how they refer to which implementation. > People can however ignore it and update-alternatives themselves, things > can get out-of-sync, and how to set priorities is

Re: Java policy change proposal: runtime/compiler selection

2006-08-19 Thread Matthias Klose
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes: > and how to set priorities is unclear and not easy to decide on. IIRC that we decided on the priorities. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2006/05/threads.html > In the current Debian Java policy, java libraries are required to > properly document how to modif

Java policy change proposal: runtime/compiler selection

2006-08-19 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Hi, Currently, there is update-java-alternatives in java-common to manage the various java commands and how they refer to which implementation. People can however ignore it and update-alternatives themselves, things can get out-of-sync, and how to set priorities is unclear and not easy to decide o