* Matthew Johnson | 2010-08-22 15:01:23 [+0100]: >On Sun Aug 22 14:41, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> The problem with the default-jdk is that most architectures have openjdk >> as default. Some packages however don't build with default-jdk != >> openjdk. One of them on top of my head is jffi without openjdk-6 [0] >> with [1]. > >Then that's a bug, that package must build-depend on openjdk specifically.
Okay so you want me to open bugs or do you want to do it yourself? I have no access to wanna-build db and this would speed-up such a query :) Besides jffi I just stumbled over lwjgl [0] having the same issue. >> The problem with packages like default-jdk is that they pull in >> different packages on different systems leading to different behaviors >> and bugs. I don't like it :) > >default-jdk is there so that whenever we add a new arch to openjdk, or have to >remove it, we don't have to update every single java package from openjdk [foo, >bar, baz] | gcj-4.4 [quux]. Most java packages work with all the jdks we >support >and don't need to know about architecture-specific issues. I see where you are going with this. So we check once in a while which packages FTBFS with gcj and depend on default-jdk. [0] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/build.php?pkg=lwjgl&arch=powerpcspe&ver=2.5%2Bdfsg-1 >Matt Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100822174426.ga19...@chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc
