On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Niels Thykier schrieb:
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.
i think we should remove default-jdk-builddep. If a package needs
gcj-jdk it should be specified as an extra B-D.
no, that seems to be wrong. assume an architecture which doesn't have gcj-jdk
(which we had in the past), you'll have a dependency of gcj-jdk [...] which
you'll have to change in every package, whereas the current solution doesn't
require any package change but java-common.
The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the name, but this
should be a distinct package.
CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
Matthias
[1]
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup
--
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/4bc2f550.7000...@debian.org
