| 1 |
On 08 Apr 2004, at 22:14, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So what ppc people want is blackdown-jdk as default provider for |
| 4 |
> <=virtual/jdk-1.3 and ibm-jdk as default for >virtual/jdk-1.3. Can |
| 5 |
> someone confirm that this understanding is correct? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes, that is a correct. I guess that this could be implemented by |
| 8 |
extending the virtuals file format: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
virtual/jdk blackdown ibm |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If an application depends on jdk version 1.4, blackdown realizations |
| 13 |
are considered first, if no satisfying one is found, the ibm search |
| 14 |
space is considered. |
| 15 |
Even better would be to consider the virtual file as 'preferences'. If |
| 16 |
none of the preferred realizations is satisfying our demand, we look |
| 17 |
for ebuilds realizing virtual/jdk (if we haven't already considered |
| 18 |
them). |
| 19 |
Faster and perhaps easier would be to allow versions to be specified: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
virtual/jdk-1.4 ibm-1.4 |
| 22 |
virtual/jdk-1.3 blackdown-1.3 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But of course these are only suggestions. The reason why we are not |
| 25 |
eager to change virtual/jdk to ibm-jdk is that this ibm-jdk-1.* has to |
| 26 |
be downloaded manually, and has a license that has to be accepted, |
| 27 |
making distributing it on a livecd difficult. Also, IBMs jdks lack |
| 28 |
certain features such as browser plugins. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Pieter Van den Abeele |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives