Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

2014-07-19 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:44:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > index 2c2a175..ac98261 100644 > --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt > +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt > @@ -161,8 +161,16 @@ Graphics and MultiMedia

Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

2014-07-16 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:33PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > >> > >>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and

Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

2014-07-15 Thread tony mancill
On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : >> >>> Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine >>> whether >>> java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be ke

Re: Bug#754876: Virtual packages for the new Java runtimes

2014-07-15 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine > > whether > > java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ? > > Hi Bill, > > Here is the definition of