Eric Lavarde writes: > Hi everybody, > > thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus. > Let me try to suggest one. > > POINT 1: > > I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines: > - the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones > tested by the packager, and for which he's ready to stand up and make it > work (the supported runtimes). > - if a bug report is related to another java runtime and the bug can't > be reproduced under the "supported" runtimes, the maintainer may > reassign the bug report to the "faulty" runtime package. > > If there is a consensus on this one, I'll file a patch on java-common.
these packages having a last alternative dependency on '| java2-runtime' > POINT 2: > > I will duplicate the bug I got on FreeMind in 4 and forward them as follows: > > 1. to sun-java5-jre and sun-java6-jre because they miss the X-library > dependencies, it can't be that my package has to depend on those in > order to work (how should I know which ones are required?). for now, see the Recommends of that package. > 2. to gij because it provides java2-runtime but doesn't provide the AWT > library. no. > 3. to gij again because, even after installation of libgcj9-0-awt, > FreeMind doesn't work properly with it. maybe. please file an upstream report, then file a bug report in debian and mark it as forwarded. <rant> Maybe having the sun-java[56] in debian is a mistake. It misleads people (even maintainers like you) to just use these, and not care about the free java stack. Keep in mind that there's only a handful of people involved in java packaging in debian (sorry if I did miss someone). </rant> Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]