On 8 August 2012 at 15:53, James Page wrote:
| Hi Dirk
|
| On 08/08/12 15:42, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Thanks for the patch. I don't follow Java in Debian that closely --
| > are you saying that 'default-jdk' now exists everywhere so I could
| > BD on in Debian unstable, and "everything else" (testing, Ubuntu
| > 12.10, ...) just falls in place?
| >
| > What about backports and builds to Debian stable, Ubuntu 12.04,
| > 11.10, 11.04, ...?
|
| default-{jdk|jre|jre-headless} have existed for quite some time now
| and are in all supported releases across Debian and Ubuntu.
Looking at package.d.o/default-jdk now and scratching my head as to how I
missed that before. Hm.
Last change (other than coping with toolchain hickups) was the switch to
openjdk-6-jdk in 2008.
| So it should *just work* :-)
|
| If you need a minimum java version you can also version it:
|
| default-jdk (>= 1:1.6)
|
| for example ensures that a package will only build on platforms which
| have a default java implementation supporting Java 6 (this is not the
| case everywhere). The added advantage is that it leaves it open ended
| unlike openjdk-6-jdk.
I _think_ I should be fine with 1.5-*. It was a fight or two to get R's Java
extension to build with the "free" Java but at some point it just started to
work. And that was some time ago. Now the main issue the lack of Java on
some of the baby architectures. I have a B-D: of
openjdk-6-jdk [!arm !hppa !kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64 !hurd-i386 !mips]
package.d.o list hppa and mips and kfreebsd but I think there was another
reason...
Are you on top of Java? Should I risk building against those?
Thanks!
Dirk
| Cheers
|
| James
|
| --
| James Page
| Ubuntu Core Developer
| Debian Maintainer
| [email protected]
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | [email protected] | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
