On 12.04.2010 13:08, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini<enr...@debian.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
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.
[1]
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts1_followup.txt?revision=1136&view=markup
I'm more than happy to change it, but since [1] is my understanding of
the situation, obviously my understanding is wrong.
I don't quite understand what is wrong with [1], so you'd help me
considerably by sending me a patch on how you'd like [1] to be changed.
Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:
"The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
metapackage that people can build-depend on."
s/default-jdk-builddep/default-jdk/
--
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/4bc309e4.50...@debian.org
