[Mageia-dev] Java-Policy first draft published

Thu Jan 20 22:42:56 CET 2011

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
+