Hello,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote:
> As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
> the package they assume it is the Java Team's "Default Build-Dependency"
> or in other words the "Right Thing" (tm) to Depend on to get a java
> compiler.
>
> I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
> else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
> B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
> suggestion for a new name, please come with it.
default-jdk-native default-jdk-jni ?
> Once we have found a new I suggest we clean up our own packages and bug
> the few packages outside the Java Team that actually produces -gcj
> packages before making default-jdk-builddep an alias of default-jdk.
> I think this will be easier than teaching the rest of Debian that
> default-jdk-builddep should be default-jdk - particularly because this
> mistake has found its way into the AM process[1], so currently new DDs
> are taught this mistake is the "Right Thing" (tm).
Shouldn't default-jdk-builldep simply be removed ? It makes sense to
b-d on a JDK to build packages... No need for an additional builddep.
Of course, this will need transitioning, but anyway we want to make
sure that what is now -builddep will only be used when gcj packages
are produced.
What about a lintian warning when Build-depending on -builddep but
not producing gcj packages ? That should be very easy to do.
Cheers,
Vincent, who probably did the mistake several times already.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/o2g2e474d6f1004120156r48551743hc4abc438ccbd4...@mail.gmail.com
