Hi Mathieu,
On 06/12/2012 08:23 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Torsten Landschoff
> <t.landsch...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 08:26 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> swig2.0 should be configured with default Java (default-jdk package). It
>>> currently uses gcj-jdk
>> You are right. However, I fail to see how this renders the package unusable
>> as the SWIG generated code should be portable among different Java version.
>>
>> I think severity grave is a bit exaggerated here.
> I thought this was a clear requirement, re-reading it:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/c208.html
>
> "Java packages should be built with default-jdk if possible."
>
> So there is a should and "if possible", how do you understand the statement ?
Does ist matter? Quoting http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities:
|grave|
makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes data
loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts
of users who use the package. I don't see how this applies to this bug.
I did not consider java-policy to apply to SWIG. Maybe I should. But
quoting http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/:
The policy covers java virtual machines, java compilers, java
programs and java libraries.
Anyway, the bug should be fixed now.
Greetings, Torsten
