Your message dated Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:25:33 +0200
with message-id <4c68d9dd.8010...@thykier.net>
and subject line java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc"
has caused the Debian Bug report #166370,
regarding java-common: Virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc"
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
166370: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=166370
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: java-common
Version: 0.16
Severity: wishlist
I think the java policy should, in addition to specifying the use of
java-virtual-machine, java-compler and java{1,}-runtime, also recommend
the use of the virtual packages "jar" and "javadoc" to ensure a package
that provides the alternatives /usr/bin/jar and /usr/bin/javadoc is
installed.
Without such virtual packages, a build-dependancy on java-compiler and
java1-runtime does not ensure the existance of either of those programs
(for example, they can be satisfied by jikes-classpath and classpath).
Debian policy says there has to be consensus on any virtual package that
is intended to be used by many packages of from different sources, so I
think java-policy and the java- is the place to decide on these.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux ivanhoe.blckknght.org 2.4.19-local #1 Mon Sep 9 00:10:27 EDT =
2002 i686
Locale: LANG=3Den_US, LC_CTYPE=3D
- -- no debconf information
--
Steven Barker st...@blckknght.org
Swap read error. You lose your mind.
Get my GnuPG public key at: http://www.blckknght.org/publickey.asc
Fingerprint: 272A 3EC8 52CE F22B F745 775E 5292 F743 EBD5 936B
pgpAvMnWQ11WY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi
I am closing this policy change proposal; it is marked as wontfix and a
conflicting policy change has been accepted.
Should you believe that this proposal is still relevant and superior to
the conflicting policy change, please do not hesitate to reopen this bug.
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEAREIAAYFAkxo2dwACgkQVCqoiq1YlqwdWwCg684/ZHJ/n6bmmnhuS1uSk5wC
XY0AnjZ2WnHDdtB2mZQqebAGe+SgswZm
=pSuQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
