* Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:34]:
> On Tue Oct 28 11:15, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > * Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> > > I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> > > entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps whe
On Tue Oct 28 11:15, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> > I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> > entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps when you update
> > your dependencies.
>
> This goes against the Fed
* Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps when you update
> your dependencies.
This goes against the Fedora and JPackage guidelines, FWIW.
Andrew
--
To UNSU
On Tue Oct 28 14:19, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
> > should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
> > features?
> It is a good idea. Some information are missing in the current Java
> Policy.
>
> A
Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 13:40 +0100, Eric Lavarde - Debian a écrit :
> Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
> should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
> features?
It is a good idea. Some information are missing in the current J
5 matches
Mail list logo
