[Mageia-dev] Java-Policy first draft published

[Michael scherer]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:37:23PM +0100, Farfouille wrote:
> Le 11/01/2011 12:27, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> > 
> > Le mardi 11 janvier 2011 à 08:17 +0100, Farfouille a écrit :
> >> Le 11/01/2011 00:00, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 21:02 +0100, Farfouille a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> The part about Requires should IMHO be pushed in rpm dependency solver .
> >> Apologize for maybe a noob question (btw I'm a noob packager waiting for his turn to be trained ;) )
> >> but what do you mean by 'rpm dependency solver' ? 
> >> Is is a tool to resolve dependencies at user installation time ?
> >> A simple link to some kind of explaination will be a perfect answer.
> > 
> > It is a script that add requires on build.
> > For example, each time there is a python script, rpm notice it and add
> > the requires on python.
> > 
> > See /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires and /usr/lib/rpm/mandriva/find-requires
> >
> I didn't find anything that deals with java dependencies in these directories. So I think the policy should be kept unchanged for this point.

Well, my point is that it should added to this script, rather
that being done manually by policy.

So yes, while there is nothing, we keep it, but it should be trivial
to add and then adapt the policy.

> >>>
> >>> I am not sure for the requires on jpackages-utils, could we explain what
> >>> it bring ?
> >> I'll dig on that during my launch break
> AFAIU jpackes-utils brings a directory structures and tools to manage JREs. It is required by packaged applications that, at least run on top of JRE (openjdk and sun-java)
> but as it is also a dependency of, at least, openjdk rpm (didn't check for sun-java nor gcj) it may be removed for java application policy. Can someone confirm this ?

Well, as I am advocating to have 1 and only 1 supported jvm to start ( because having more
just add complexity and insanity, and there is already enough work to do ), maybe the directory 
structure should be pushed into the jvm.
( now, i guess that the move to have 1 single jvm will be seen as extremely controversial , I know ).
-- 
Michael Scherer