Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The major question is about replacing java1-runtime, java1-compiler, > java2-runtime and java2-compiler virtual packages by classpath-jre, > classpath-jdk for free java implementation and java-jre and java-jdk for > non-free implementations. More informations on the bug report #365408. > Thanks to Cc to the bug report.
The java* virtual package names should not direct people to non-free implementations when there are free implementations available. This is a project-y opinion rather than a legal-y one. > Charles Fry a Âcrit : > [...] > > But I strongly disagree with using classpath-* for free versions, and > > saving java for non-free implementations. That encourages the use of the > > non-free implementations. > > No because java programs that work with free implementations will depend > on classpath-jre. I think enough users will ask for Java in particular to cause problems. > > How about java-* for both free and non-free, and then if some package > > explicitely requires non-free they can depend on sun-java5-jre. > > I think we have to ask on debian-legal about this but I'm sure we cannot > use the java word if it's not something that has been approved by Sun. A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]