On Sunday 28 March 2010, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi > > I just had a conversation with Damien Raude-Morvan and Matthew Johnson > about the strict dependencies between javadoc packages. We considered > lowering the requirement from a Depends to a Recommends. > > The rationale is that the javadoc is functional even without the docs it > links too and it allows users to use the "--without-recommends" or > "--no-install-recommends" to avoid having to install a lot of javadocs > they are not interested in. > > I will do this change on Tuesday, provided no one objects to this.
Finished reading the patches, the bug reports and the e-mails. I like the idea of putting these very old bug reports behind us. Moving in small patches seems also very good as the dependency issues of different JREs, JVMs, SDK, etc will be a tough issue to agree upon (I for once find the idea of shipping only one JRE to be a mistake). Aside from the fact that another pair of eyes went through the whole thing, I found a typo: if you search the FOSDEM patch for the following string: "and shipped in a separately from the original jar file" you can fix it (most probably something like "and shipped separately from the original jar file"). Good work! P.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
