Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644
> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> @@ -161,8 +161,16 @@ Graphics and MultiMedia
>
> Java and virtual machines
> -
> - java1-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 1
> - java2-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 2
> + 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 ver.
> 5
> + java6-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver.
> 6
> + java7-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver.
> 7
> + java8-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver.
> 8
> + java9-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver.
> 9
>
> Scheme and interpreters
> -
> @@ -329,3 +337,7 @@ Bill Allombert:
> Charles Plessy:
>03 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-encoder
>17 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-decoder
> +
> +Bill Allombert:
> + 16 Jul 2014 Added java{5,6,7,8,9}-runtime{,-headless}
> + Removed java1-runtime, java2-runtime
Seconded.
I will commit to the repository shortly.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> 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.
OK, so I offer the following patch. Is it fine ?
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644
--- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
+++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
@@ -161,8 +161,16 @@ Graphics and MultiMedia
Java and virtual machines
-
- java1-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 1
- java2-runtime a Java runtime environment, Java version 2
+ 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 ver. 5
+ java6-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 6
+ java7-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 7
+ java8-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 8
+ java9-runtime-headless a non-graphical Java runtime environment, Java ver. 9
Scheme and interpreters
-
@@ -329,3 +337,7 @@ Bill Allombert:
Charles Plessy:
03 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-encoder
17 Aug 2013 Removed mp3-decoder
+
+Bill Allombert:
+ 16 Jul 2014 Added java{5,6,7,8,9}-runtime{,-headless}
+ Removed java1-runtime, java2-runtime
Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
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
Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
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 ?
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140715183024.GA9657@yellowpig
Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes
Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Hi, The list of virtual packages [1] contains only two packages for the Java runtimes (java1-runtime and java2-runtime), but new virtual packages have been in use since at least 2008 when sun-java and openjdk started to be packaged [2]. Could you please add the following packages to reflect the current practices of the Java Team? java5-runtime, java5-runtime-headless, java6-runtime, java6-runtime-headless, java7-runtime, java7-runtime-headless, java8-runtime, java8-runtime-headless, java9-runtime, java9-runtime-headless Thank you, Emmanuel Bourg [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sun-java5/+bug/160016 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53c523c6.2000...@apache.org
