On 06/09/2013 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 06/09/13 21:55, Robert Millan wrote: >> The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to >> bypass default-jdk in order to get things working... > What do you mean by that? To tighten the build-dependencies of eclipse > and others, that can't build with gcj? > > I think the risk is that openjdk-7 could be removed from kfreebsd-* in > sid at the request of the maintainer, if we're unable to keep it > building+working. We may then lose packages that FTBFS without it (but > if we don't change, we'd never have had them in the first place). Other > packages should fall back to gcj and still be okay. I think that pushing to upstream the changes done for the Kfreebsd port would be the way to ensure that it is maintained... > It seems we could go ahead without treating this like a transition. I > was thinking we may want to ask the Release Team for rebuilds of some > already-built packages to use the new java-defaults. Even if that's > refused, it's still not a problem. And given the risk of maybe losing > openjdk-7 or otherwise having to go back to gcj, maybe we shouldn't > bother doing that at all. > > So, what do you say we just go ahead with changing java-defaults? > I think it is the best solution that we have for Kfreebsd currently.
Sylvestre -- 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/522a494f.4080...@debian.org
