On 01/10/05, Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Julien Wajsberg wrote: > > On 28/09/05, Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>Tomcat actually needs a JDK and not a JRE. > > > > It already depends on a jdk. I suggested an _additional_ and > > _conditionnal_ dependency, not one that would replace the existing > > dependencies. > > I don't understand why a conditional dependency on jessie. Jessie could > be installed along with jdk1.4 and provides better security!
I didn't know that it would provide better security :) > > >>>I believe the addition of > >>>the libjessie-java dependency is part of moving Tomcat 4 to main; > >>>Wolfgang and Arnaud can best answer that. Since the Sun JRE/JDK is > >>>never an asuumption for anything moved to main, dependencies will > >>>seldom reflect a Sun-centric perspective. > > > > I believe I used the "or" operator for the dependencies. That's why I > > don't think that the dependencies I suggested would prevent tomcat4 > > from going to main. (But i'm maybe wrong on that though). > > If jdk is a dependency, tomcat4 will not go to main. ok. > > > Maybe the best idea would be a "jsse" virtual package: libjessie-java > > would provide it, as would other packages like ones generated by > > java-package. > > No, jessie is a javax.net security provider, as saxon, gnujaxp, xerces > are xml parsers. You can choose the one you want. I don't know why you > don't wanna have jessie in your system. Just because I thought it was useless for me because Sun JRE already provides this functionnality. And I don't see the point in having an useless library on my system, even if it's free. But I admit it was much more a concern before, when it depended on classpath ;) Let's close definitely this bug, sorry for bugging you... -- Julien
