[aur-general] Java SDK/Runtime dependencies
grbzks at gmail.com
Thu Feb 5 06:18:33 EST 2009
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Rorschach has asked me to bring the discussion at
> to this mailing list.
> Please help us find a consensus.
> My answer to his last question is:
> Let them install openjdk6 to provide the j2sdk dependency.
> It's not the Arch philosophy to cut on freedom of choice.
> By forcing a user to use either a free or proprietary alternative
> of a PROVIDES we ignore the purpose of this clause (i.e.
> providing freedom of choice).
> Moreover I don't really see what's controversial here.
> I'm a free software supporter myself, but I don't like
> forcing people to use it.
> provides=j2sdk is the way that will hurt no party.
I agree with everything you say regarding j2sdk, since both packages
provide it, ideally (in packaging terms) this should be the dependency.
It would make all users happy. Those using Sun's Java and openjdk ones.
Obviously setting the dependency to j2sdk has no disadvantages.
If the maintainer of the package doesnt understand that for whatever
reason,then just do what an OSS developer would. Fork it. Its not like
its binary anyway. Plus its his pakage now, so he can do whatever he
wants with it, even if thats opposing the interests of the community.
Cause it does.
what to do and what not to do in public :o)
More information about the aur-general