JDK-4397088 : Linux RPMs for JSDK and JRE have no common "provides" clause
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: install
  • Sub-Component: install
  • Affected Version: 1.3.0,1.4.2
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
  • OS: generic,linux,solaris_2.5.1
  • CPU: generic,x86
  • Submitted: 2000-12-11
  • Updated: 2004-07-14
  • Resolved: 2004-07-14
Related Reports
Duplicate :  
Duplicate :  
Description

Name: skT45625			Date: 12/11/2000


Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3.0)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)


The JSDK and JRE are provided as separate RPMs for Linux. This is good, but they
have no common "provides" clause, so for authors of java applications it is
difficult/impossible to correctly manage dependencies.

I have written a shell script that will correctly execute my java app whether
the end user has JRE or JSDK installed. I would like my product to install
correctly only if one of these were provided. But as far as I can tell, RPM does
not allow "or" dependencies, so I must list one or the other, and customers who
have the "wrong one" installed will be told that they cannot install my
application.

It would be nice if the RPMs had a virtual package name that is common to them
(eg: add "%provides java_1_3" to the spec files), so that I could use that as my
"%Requires" line and the installation will correctly test to ensure that one of
them is present.

Another solution would be to follow the RPM standard of a "java" package
containing the JRE, and a "java-devel" package containing the extra files needed
to turn the JRE into the JSDK. This would make the Linux packages rather
different from other java packages, though, so it might be best to just add a
virtual package that they both share.
(Review ID: 113631) 
======================================================================

Comments
WORK AROUND Name: skT45625 Date: 12/11/2000 I am going to have to simply do my dependency checking myself in the "%pre" script. This is an ugly solution, because it means that tests will indicate that my application will install correctly, but when users try to actually install they will get errors. ======================================================================
02-09-2004

EVALUATION This is an excellent suggestion that we will consider for a future release. ###@###.### 2003-01-20
20-01-2003