On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
>>
>>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine
>>> whether
>>> java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Here is the definition of these packages:
>>
>> java5-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 5
>> java6-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 6
>> java7-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 7
>> java8-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 8
>> java9-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 9
>> java5-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
>> version 5
>> java6-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
>> version 6
>> java7-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
>> version 7
>> java8-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
>> version 8
>> java9-runtime-headless a non graphical Java runtime environment, Java
>> version 9
>>
>> java1-runtime and java2-runtime are still provided by gcj-jre and
>> openjdk-{6,7,8} but they are obsolete. We remove them from the
>> dependencies as we update the packages.
>>
>> java9-runtime isn't used yet but is likely to appear in Jessie+1,
>> feel free to remove it if you prefer keeping only the packages currently
>> used.
>
> Fine! Could you get someone from the Java team double check and second this ?Hello Bill, Seconded. java5 is our minimum supported runtime (I believe since squeeze), so I don't see any need for java1 or java2 as virtual package names. I have a preference for "non-graphical" over "non graphical" in the description of the -headless variants, but it appears that both usages are common. Cheers, tony
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
