Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

2008-03-03 Thread Matthias Klose
[sent to debian-java@lists.debian.org and [EMAIL PROTECTED] For packaging we currently use a build dependency on a package which we did agree for packaging (java-gcj-compat-dev). Now with other more conformant Java implementations available, we might want to change to those implementations for bu

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

2008-03-03 Thread Eric Lavarde
Hi Matthias, I don't see the advantage of this approach over well defined virtual packages, which I notice you seem anyway to implicitly expect (java5-runtime, java5-sdk, etc...). Can you perhaps elaborate a bit on this? Thanks, Eric Matthias Klose wrote: [sent to debian-java@lists.debian.o

Processed: submitter 395372

2008-03-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > submitter 395372 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#395372: java-common: [policy] relax or expand the "binaries in /usr/bin" restriction (2.3) Changed Bug submitter from Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROT

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

2008-03-03 Thread Vincent Fourmond
Hello Eric, Eric Lavarde wrote: > I don't see the advantage of this approach over well defined virtual > packages, which I notice you seem anyway to implicitly expect > (java5-runtime, java5-sdk, etc...). > Can you perhaps elaborate a bit on this? Autobuilders cannot work with virtual packag

Processed: submitter 395374

2008-03-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > submitter 395374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#395374: java-common: [policy] clarify whether java-policy is normative Changed Bug submitter from Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to [EMAIL PRO

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

2008-03-03 Thread Matthias Klose
Vincent Fourmond writes: > > Hello Eric, > > Eric Lavarde wrote: > > I don't see the advantage of this approach over well defined virtual > > packages, which I notice you seem anyway to implicitly expect > > (java5-runtime, java5-sdk, etc...). > > Can you perhaps elaborate a bit on this? > >

Re: Introducing distro-{jre,jre-headless,jdk,jdk-builddep} packages

2008-03-03 Thread Michael Koch
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > [sent to debian-java@lists.debian.org and [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For packaging we currently use a build dependency on a package which > we did agree for packaging (java-gcj-compat-dev). Now with other more > conformant Java implemen