On Monday 31 October 2005 15:58, Marcin Dębicki wrote: > Hamish Moffatt kiedys napisal: > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:22:31AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > >> On Monday 31 October 2005 05:28, Dalibor Topic wrote: > >> > The packagers used a specific free runtime to make the eclipse package > >> > build and work, so they made that runtime specifically part of the > >> > dependencies, as that's a configuration the packagers can focus on to > >> > support. > >> > > >> > You are most welcome to contribute, and help improve the eclipse > >> > packages. > >> > >> This does _not_ make a lot of sense. It would make much more sense to > >> suggest gcj/gij > >> and depend on java-virtual-machine. This leaves it up the the user to > >> decide if he can > >> use a non-free jvm. I my case many of the apps I use (non-debian) fail > >> with the free > >> jvms. In short this type of depends is, IMO a bug. It will force me, > >> and many others, to bypass the packaging system, which is usually a bad > >> idea. > > > > Your argument is only reasonable if your non-free Java environment is a > > complete drop-in replacement for building and running Eclipse. > > > > If not, then you're asking for extra work to be done to support multiple > > JVMs. If that's what you need, patches are probably welcome. > > > > > > Hamish > Maybe not. Original (downloaded) Eclipse version works with both gcj/gij and > Sun JDK. And I think that with Sable and kaffe it could also work wothout > patching as far as I know. Maybe when all Eclipse packages will be > available, I will repack it and try with each virtual machine.
Thanks, If you want the packages tested on another box please ask. Ed Tomlinson