On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 08:10:46AM +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 20.09.2009 13:43, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > >Package: java-common
> > >Version: 0.33
> > >Severity: normal
> > >
> > >I second this proposal using the java-{jre,jdk} for free and
> > >java-{jre,jdk}-nonfree
> > >for nonfree packages.
> >
> > No, we should develop against a spec, not against a product. maybe
> > this was more wanted in the past, but we should not make this
> > distinction in the presence of OpenJDK.
>
> I see it the same way. We have now default-* and that should be enough. We
> should close
> this bug instead as times have changed since it was filed.
I was a bit in need for coffee I think.
In my opinion we should remove java-compiler. Its not really needed anymore
as we nowadays can depend on a JDK and be done. In the past we needed to
explicitely depend on compiler and class library.
I see currently no way to remove javaX-runtime virtual packages. On the
contrary. We need to redefine and extend them to meet current JREs/JDKs.
In the past we also got requests to provide a virtual package for 'jar'.
I think we should neglect this. People can use the existing packages
(like default-jdk) and be done. I know this installs much more than just
jar. For people who need only jar they can use fastjar.
Cheers,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
