[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Not yet a policy proposal but...


If you look in two places - at #163197 (which says about conflicting
files, like /usr/include/jni.h, and for ex. at output of:
apt-cache show libgcj3-dev

The Conflicts: line is here interesting:

Conflicts: libgcj0, libgcj0-dev, libgcj300-dev, libgcj2-dev

Bzzz... IMO it asks for virtual conflicts.
It may not be possible to standarize for every single JVM for
Debian, but I hope that at least GCJ people could agree on
sth, so that the others could just Conflicts: libgcj-dev.

So if any GCJ developer can see it - I'd like to hear opinion.

I am sure we're gonna get more versions of libgcj packages
that any JVM header files should conflict with. It can be
a bit problematic to keep up with every JVM headers out there.


				Grzegorz B. Prokopski

PS: for now I am gonna just add this to my libsablevm1-dev:

Conflicts: libgcj0, libgcj0-dev, libgcj300-dev, libgcj2-dev,

Oh, why can't we just: Conflicts: libgcj*-dev? ;-)

PSS: I am sure there are much more packages libsablevm1-dev
should conflict with.

Maybe some libjava-dev virtual conflicts would be in order
even to code into Java-policy at some point?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: